Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr12.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr12.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.68]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA07751 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from srvr7.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr7.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.69]) by srvr12.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA08974 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr7.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA24354 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA09336; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay1.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id JAA09326; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay1.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id JAA10949; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA24246 for juknalis at ARSERRC.Gov; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:31:23 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01831 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:48:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:48:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199702131348.IAA01831 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1382 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 13 February 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1382 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Administration: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Re: Competition supply estimation BOS selection Re: Example scoresheets Re: communication Appointing BOS panel before the competition Re:4 BOS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dion Hollenbeck Date: 12 Feb 1997 09:02:24 -0800 Subject: Re: Competition supply estimation >> korz writes: AlK> This last point reminds me of something... could whoever is AlK> putting together the BJCP Competition Organizer's Booklet add AlK> formulas for quantities of scoresheets and cups based upon AlK> entries and judges? I've always guessed wrong and ended up with AlK> shortages or surpluses. Having been Asst. Organizer last year and Organizer this year, I am wrestling with this right now. The cup issue is no problem at all for us. Since our club uses cups at our regular club meetings all year long, I buy twice as many as I think we will need for the competition and any surplus gets used during the year. Regarding scoresheets, the way I have planned on solving this is to not put the labels that the AHA provided on the masters because it includes "4th Annual" and/or the year. Instead, I am making a "generic" label that will just say "America's Finest City Homebrew Competition" and that way any leftover scoresheets will be useable the next year. Yes, it would be good to have some sort of formulas to make sure that you have enough, but if you handle things correctly, the surplus should be useable in the future. dion QUAFF President Organizer America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html - --- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ From: hollen at vigra.com Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 09:10:09 PST Subject: BOS selection How do other competitions pull beers for BOS round? In previous years, we have taken a cut at scores below a certain level so as to give the BOS panel only about 8-10 beers to work with. All first place beers above a certain score would go to BOS round. The danger in this is if a particular panel had excessively high or low scores overall, then you could stand the chance of not actually having the 10 best beers in BOS round. Do you put all 1st place beers in BOS round? Is this overloading the BOS panel? Do you make a score level cut like we have been doing? thanks, dion BJCP Recognized Organizer America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html - --- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:01:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Example scoresheets Bryan Gros wrote: > When I got my exam results back, there were a few comments about my > scoresheets, which as I suspected needed work. But it would have been > really helpful if the scorers could have assembled a "nearly perfect" > scoresheet for me to compare with mine. Without knowing the kinds > of comments and depth of feedback that the scorers were looking for, > I still am not sure exactly how I should be filling out a score sheet. And > I think mine look pretty good compared to some that I get in the mail. Although this doesn't really help those who have taken the exam, I have started to include sample scoresheets and the new style guidelines with the study guide packets I am sending out. When I get closer to depleting my supply of the latter, I will do complete revisions to bring them up-to-date and in synch with the way the guidelines are laid out. I posted the comments on one of the beers here last Fall, along with those from an inexperienced judge for comparison, but it's much more enlightening to see them handwritten on the beer scoresheet. Scott ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:22:24 -0500 Subject: Re: communication I said: * Scores should be within 7 points, but if you are far apart to begin with, you don't need to revise them to be very closer together than 7 points. Judging from Al's response, this is subject to misinterpretation (not to mention having a semantic error). What I meant was that judges should not feel compelled to bring their scores any CLOSER than 7 points. We had a couple of cases where scores were "originally" something like 28 and 42, and were then "adjusted" to 28 and 29. Along with the obvious erasures, this sends an undesirable message to the brewer about the quality of the judging. If it had been adjusted to even 28 and 35, it would have been clear to the brewer that there was still a difference of opinion between the two judges. =Spencer ------------------------------ From: Deborah Robinson Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:47:33 -0800 Subject: Appointing BOS panel before the competition Has anyone ever been involved with a competition where individuals were invited to be on BOS before the actual competition? It certainly never happened in my experience on the East Coast, and was surprised that it happened here in the NW. It is not the full BOS panel, but some people were invited, primarily because they have excellent reputations in the community. It may be from the group's lack of experience, but I vehemently disagreed; regardless of the caliber of the individuals invited, I've always thought the BOS panel should represent a cross section of clubs and judge levels present at the competition. Anyone else ever run into this kind of thing? Deborah Robinson deborahr at microsoft.com ------------------------------ From: fespourteille at mmt.com (Francois Espourteille) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:38:21 -0500 Subject: Re:4 BOS Rick Drake posted: >I, too, was on the BOS panel for that competition and in defense of >Zach Hilgers, I believe he is guilty of making a bad choice of words , >but not in the "deciding" which beer was BOS. The panel selected the >Kolsch because it was the best beer to style. Being that I wasn't in that panel I don't know first hand what happened and had to rely on the account given by Zach. If it was only a matter of word choice, it was indeed a poor once. The implications are far reaching. >The problem we had in choosing the winner was the lack of familiarity >with the Kolsch style. A commercial example of this style is not >available in our part of the country ( is it anywhere in the USA?) and >none of the BOS judges have had the good fortune of visiting Koln, >yet. This beer was an excellent beer and when we compared the flavor >profile to the AHA style guidelines this beer fit perfectly into the >description. The part that put it over the top, for me, as BOS was it >hit the "slightly dry, winy and subtly sweet palate" right on the >money, which I believe is no small brewing feat. It's selection on was >based on merit not on "big vs. small". Glad to hear it, although that not what Zach posted a while ago: >Both beers were quite good, but then the discussion of "big beers >always winning" came up and we all tasted again. I think that the >K=F6lsch won because it was not only an excellent example o= f the >style, but that we decided that this was not going to be another "big >beer"- winning competition. If the panel discussed "big beer always winning", that could have had an influence on the outcome. The discussion was probably not too appropriate during BOS. >Judging is becoming increasingly more difficult in that the quality >of homebrewed beer continues to advance with time. More brewers with >more knowledge producing finer examples of the hobby... >In the BOS round, most of the beers there have already scored in the >40+ range. The task of deciding which 40+ beer is the BOS is daunting. >There may or may not be one beer that stands out of the crowd as it >probably did in the past. So what, then, is used as the selection >criteria? Yes, I definetely agree that picking a winner among 10+ entries, all scoring high is a challenge. Not much may separate the beers. There are usually no major flaws at this stage and it's time to look for the minor flaws. This is where style knowledge is critical along with a well trained palate and sense of smell. I usually look for hard to find minor flaws, expression of the characteristics that make up the style, overall ballance of the beer as it relate to style and so forth. >When it comes to the complaint about "big" beers winning to often, >should judges be privy to the recipe and discount beers that are brewed >too "big" for the style? I am not sure the recipe is necessary. For low and medium gravity beers, one should be able to tell if the beer is too big for style. For the high gravity beers, where the problem is more common and it is harder to determine starting gravities, I use a couple of other criteria such as drinkability and overall ballance. I don't necessarily have a problem with a barley wine exceeding its upper starting gravity, as long as it remains ballanced and drinkable. Subjectivity does come into play here. As you state a little later: >I think that each judge has his/her own method of determining what >score or placement a beer should receive. This is the subjective part >of this hobby and will always remain this way. But, even with all the problems, challenges and disagreements, we must all enjoy the entire process, since we keep on coming back for more. Cheers, Francois. ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1382 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.