Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr7.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr7.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.69]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21096 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 12:46:38 -0400 (EDT) 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 MAA02993 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 12:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) with X.500 id MAA19999; Sat, 31 May 1997 12:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) with SMTP id MAA19989; Sat, 31 May 1997 12:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA15740 for spencer at umich.edu; Sat, 31 May 97 12:46:29 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17143 for judge-digest-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 12:15:44 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 12:15:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199705311615.MAA17143 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1449 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Saturday, 31 May 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1449 ============================================================================ 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 Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Various exam Re: Virginia judges needed (fwd) publicity for the BJCP Re: Preparing for the Exam Re: Stewards getting Experience ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bickham Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Various Bryan Gros writes: > I think the exam proctor should be obligated to hold at least one study > session where the basics of beer evaluation are described (how to fill > out a score sheet) and the exam format and study questions. Not everyone > has net access. Except in many cases, the proctor is not local. In the last year, I proctored exams in Washington, DC, Columbia, SC, New Orleans and St. Louis, for example. But a judging seminar is extremely helpful, even in the form of a mini-seminar before each exam or competition. The net access is a more difficult problem, which brings me to another point - the new and improved BJCP study guide is on the web page at http://www.bjcp.org. It has been condensed to fewer to sixty pages, primarily at the expense of exchanging the BJCP Style Guidelines for the written descriptions. I think too many people were concentrating on those for their reviewing, when their time would have been better spent reading Jackson or the beer style series. In any case, it also includes several pages describing the judging procedure, and that should help walk novice judges through the process. Text, MS Word 6.0 and html formats are available on-line, and I also send hard copies to exam sponsors and anyone else who requests them. The hard copies include examples of completed judging sheets, so there is a slight advantage to relying on non-internet transfers of information. Scanned versions of the scoresheets were considered, but the increase in file size outweighed the advantages. > Where clubs aren't available, exam takers should > organize themselves. I believe there needs to be at least five people > to organize an exam, so hopefully they live close enough together > to get together at least once or twice. Another excellent idea, but one that I felt needed more guidance. There are many ways to run a study group, and some work better than others. Brewing Techniques just accepted for publication an article written by your truly outlining a suggested syllabus for an exam study course. Admittedly, Gregg Smith even suggested a different format from the one I first wrote, but I am pretty happy with the final version. Dennis Davison also made some helpful comments when he reviewed the second draft. It basically consists of ten sessions, with nine combined tasting and review sessions and the tenth a Dr. Beer (tm) seminar. In the nine courses, a group of similar styles is tasted, and the pertinant information on those styles is reviewed along with a technical topic. There is a timed mini-exam at the end of each course consisting of two essay questions (pulled from the question pool) and the judging of a beer is the same group as those tasted. I like this format because it mimics the exam format, which is five style questions, five technical questions and the judging of four beers. I should point out that while I classify them as style or technical questions, the best answers to the style question include some technical information, while the best answers to technical questions related the technical information to beer styles. A good example of the latter is the malting question. While malting itself is not important on the beer scoresheet, an important criterium is modification, and this has dramatic effects on the methods needed to process the malt. This in turn affects the recipe, which of course affects the quality and flavor of the finished beer. A judge who can work his or her way through this process (not in the detail of Malting and Brewing Science, but perhaps Miller) is a valuable asset. Jackson even describes the malting process in some of his beer style books, so I rest my case. Scott ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:10:11 -0500 Subject: exam Top of the morning to ye all, >>>George De Piro said: Bill seems to believe that all judges are worthless. He observes that judges sometimes give improper advice on how to improve a brew. Perhaps Bill would be placated if we just disband the BJCP? <<< Bill didn't say that at all. I do believe that most of the judges no matter what the rank do the best job that they can. My point was and I stand by it is that the rank of the judge doesn't determine the quality of the judging. The exam doesn't assure that high scoring candicates will be good judges. By the way George thanks for explaining why not to give feedback on how to correct a flaw. When the probability of giving incorrect advice is in the .8 range the chances are very good you will wind up looking like a jerk. Watch you sanitation, a well worn phrase that most of us have used once in a while, doesn't help the brewer at all. The BJCP to improve has to have an adequate means to review the judging of the members. The one test to gets all approch to advancement is not grand. Automatic advancement from one level to another just because five years ago an individual got a 90+ on the exam provides no assurance that this person deserves the advancement. >>>John Wilson said: but, should individuals who do not understand the malting process or brewing techniques be GIVEN a master ranking? <<< Why not? Isn't the point of judging to rank and evauluate the beer you are judging? Now if the the program was about brewing beer rather then judging beer then you might have a point. Because of some of the requirements we have placed on who may become what I think that we have missed the oppurtunity of have many more great judges. You don't have to be able to brew to appreciate a great beer, nor do you even have to understand how the beer was brewed. Bill ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Virginia judges needed (fwd) Yet another request for judges in the Mid-Atlantic area. The problem this time is a conflict betweem the Spirit of Free Beer and the Richmond Cup. They have several enthusiastic, but mostly novice, judges in Richmond who would benefit immensely from judging with more experienced ones. Unfortunately, most of the DC judges have committed to the SoFB, so perhaps some of the judges in North Carolina could lend a hand. Forwarded message from Amahl Turczyn: > I have a question for you--A Mr. Lindsay Weiford called yesterday about > 4pm from the James River Homebrewers Club in Richmond VA. (I have their > competition in my database as "Dominion Cup." Apparently, they are > sponsoring a competition on the same day as another club's in their > area, and they can't find enough judges. They have 10 categories with > about 100 beers. As of now, they have 4 program judges, though he wants > to also bring in "judges-to-be." Is one certified judge per table > acceptable? Can we get them a few more? His number is 804-537-5228(w) > or 804-537-5228(h). If you can help them out on this I'd sure > appreciate it. Let me know if there's anything I can do on this end. - -- ======================================================================== Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6691 E-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil Complex Systems Theory Branch Home or BJCP: 7507 Swan Point Way Washington, DC 20375 Columbia, MD 21045 (202) 404-8632 FAX: (202) 404-7546 (410) 290-7721 BJCP Web Page: http://www.bjcp.org ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_aka_Dr._Beer=AE=22?=" Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 18:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: publicity for the BJCP maybe this should just be addressed to the board of directors but I thought others might be interested and have opinions/ideas. In the Beer Abbey section of Drink magazine Spring 1997 issue Marty Nachel answers a reader inquiry and mentions the BJCP. Unfortunately he didn't provide a BJCP contact address although he did provide a contact address for himself and can probably forward any requests he receives. While the BJCP certainly garners word of mouth publicity and does occasionally get some free press in places like Brewing Techniques I don't believe that there is currently any formal PR contact or any plan for publicizing the organization and its mission. Maybe given the continued growth in number of exams we have seen over the last three years actively seeking publicity might be counter productive. However there might also be some benefit in at least increasing awareness in the brewing community (amateur and especially professional) of what the BJCP's goals and mission is even if we aren't actively recruiting as such. Please note these are my personal opinions and don't in any way represent the BJCP as an organization. What do others think? Jay - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's This is a key free document, no keyboards were harmed in its creation. (The DragonDictate speech recognition system, the CIC handwriting recognizer, or some combination was used.) ------------------------------ From: jeff at edm.ca (Jeff Pinhey) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 12:15:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Preparing for the Exam In our club, we have aout 4 in club competitions per year. For those evenings, a BJCP stewards the tables of neophytes (every member, not only those planning on writing). We start off by reviewing protocol, the scoresheet, the style we are judging tonight etc. We use the BJCP scoresheet and style guidelines. I always stick one or two ringers in there. I saw this in the results of a Brews Brothers club competition in their newsletter where someone's Doppelbock beat or tied Salvator, and I have done so ever since. On occassion, the ringer has not won at our club, (though Salvator did win our Bock). We encourage the BrewNosers to judge quietly, then discuss. The stewards watch out for people who might be trying to "run" the scoring (dominants) and try to diplomatically caution. We have a special recognition for people who recognize their own beer, and a protocol for that. (they judge it, do minimal conversation after first go, once the numbers have been agreed on they admit to it, and their score does not count) The stewards also judge the beers, though sometimes quite quickly. We go over the club average scores for the beers and present the scores we have assigned. In this manner most of the members acquire some calibration to us, as we have from other BJCP judges elsewhere. Of course, there are always some people who simply always seems to be at complete odds with the rest of the club, yet are usually quite certain and vocal of their opinions. Being as the BJCP judges in our club are essentially enthusiatical scorers (I myself tend to score higher than others when I travel to regional or national competitions, though not a lot, of course) I think that our members would tend to also be nicer to very good beers, and make more use of the 40 plus range than perhaps most of you would. I explain this by the historical lack of excellent beers of any kind (save one brewpub making bitter) in our region. When we get a very good beer, to us, relatively, it is excellent. Five of these member recently wrtoe the exam, and I am curious as to how they scored. When I reviewed their scoresheets, sure enough, they were a little too nice to the beers. ####################################################### Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, Nova Scotia ------------------------------ From: jeff at edm.ca (Jeff Pinhey) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 12:36:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Stewards getting Experience I actually wrote the exam for the first time in the mornging prior to the judgeing for the Great Canadian Homebrew Contest. I then judged two sessions in the afternoon, after writing. This was my first time ever judging beer. Two weeks later I was at the AHA Nationals in Manchester NH, still (of course) not having got my mark back yet on the exam. Therefore I stewarded. No offense to the people in Toronto, but the judges at manchester were great to me. I especially remember Phil Moeller and Byron Burch as really teaching me about the styles they were judging that I was bringing to the table. The specialty beers (PM's table) remain one of my favourite styles to judge, much in part because of the approach to judging them he introduced me to that day. I do remember that one of the judges didn't want him to "waste" the beers on me, but he did anyway. Last year, at New Orleans, I was "sitting in his chair" judging the same style. I had never had a mead before, and Byron made sure I got to taste every one they judged that day, most memorably, for me, was a jalapeno mead that grew in heat in my mouth just until I thought I might have to spit it out, then slowly, and easily receded back to almost, or sort of, quench. The experience I got that day has been one of the main reasons why I have stayed at this hobby. I passed that exam, and was lucky enough to score over 80 the first time. Living in Halifax, where it is illegal to take your homebrew or wine off your property, the closest competition has been in Montreal, a 13 hour drive. All my points, except the stewarding allocation at Manchester, have been for judging, and more than half of them at National Competitions. It has taken me a long time to get where I have, and if it was much more difficult a process, it would have been an even greater challenge to keep at it. Perhaps it is too easy to get those experience point in Maine, Massachusetts, Illinois, Toronto, Colorado, and California; but it sure isn't easy here. Jeff Pinhey BJCP National (very recent) Judge ####################################################### Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, Nova Scotia ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1449 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.