Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199806270401.AAA22588 at brew.oeonline.com>
To: judge at hbd.org
From: judge-request at hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-to: judge at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-to: judge-request at hbd.org
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Beer Judge Digest #5 (June 27, 1998)
Status: RO


Beer Judge Digest #5		             Sat 27 June 1998


	FORUM ON BEER JUDGING AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Custodian: custodian at hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Beer Judge Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Re: Total vs. Average vs. Assigned (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re:  Beer Judge Digest #4 (June 26, 1998) (OudBruin)
  RE: hypersensitive palates ("Henckler, Andrew")
  You've got to be kidding (George_De_Piro)
  RE: Beer Judge Digest #4 (June 26, 1998) (Steven Lichtenberg)
  Re: Exam beers (Jeremy Bergsman)
  1997 AHA NHC Lancaster ("Mark S. Johnston")


Send articles for __publication_only__ to judge at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to judge-request at hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! 
You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!! 

Requests for back issues will be ignored. 

CUSTODIANS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (custodian at hbd.org)

              "Not a publication of the BJCP"


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:32:36 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Total vs. Average vs. Assigned 

The score on the cover sheet should be a *CONSENSUS* score on the 50
point scale.  It does not need to be an *AVERAGE* unless that's what
the judges at the table decide to use.

I have never heard of using a *TOTAL* score on the cover sheet.

=Spencer


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:26:49 EDT
From: OudBruin at aol.com
Subject: Re:  Beer Judge Digest #4 (June 26, 1998)

Ref: lancaster, pa 1997 1st round nationals
Yup, yer right someone dropped the ball.
AHA says that the people who were supposed to file the report claim that they
did and that aha never got the report and now they(randy and kathy) don't have
the software any more and the records are lost.., well it's a bitter pill to
swallow, but i think we're all f***ed in this respect..
it's unfortunate, but I think that AHA is and has been getting a lot of bad
press lately from my new england neighbors. I think we should concentrate on
that which is positive and move on to the next event.
Hopefully, the 1999 1st round in the northeast won't be the debacle it has
been in the last few years..

as for sending in a ringer to a competition or bjcp exam, I had discussed the
possibility of doing that in the 1998 specitacle de houblon du monde, and my
comitees felt it would be a de facto "dirty trick".. so we didn't use ringers,
I still think it's a great way to keep folks on thier toes..
brew safe, brew happy
Bruce Hammell
P>S>Big thanks to pat and company for reviving the crosstalk betw all of us
beer crazies


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:25:34 -0400
From: "Henckler, Andrew" <ahenckler at findsvp.com>
Subject: RE: hypersensitive palates


> From: "Lee C. Bussy" <lbussy at kc.net>
> Subject: A Happy Tear....
> 
> I have a comment that I wonder if we'd like to discuss....
> hypersensitive
> people.  While judging recently I sat with a person who was
> hypersensitive
> to DMS.  Now... granted DMS has no place in a Bock beer but how bad is
> bad?
> If you have a trace in an otherwise fine beer... how badly do you ding
> it.
> It's still only one flaw right?
> 
> What compounded this situation was the fact that this jusde found
> intollerable amounts of DMS in beers where I could barely detect it.
> We
> ended up on a few beers having a 10 point disparity between our
> scores.
> Should a hypersensitive person (who should know by now that they are)
> temper
> his/her judgement in these areas?
> 
> 
Absolutely, particularly in situations where the hypersensitive judge is
paired with one or more experienced judges known to be accurate.
Occasionally, I will misinterpret a flavor or aroma, such as a strong
maltiness on a maerzen in a recent contest which I mistook for a grapey
fruitiness (how's that for cross-thread responses).  In this case, the
other two judges in this mini-BOS perceived this note as maltiness and
the beer was otherwise fine.  My score was a few points lower than the
others'. but I deferred to the others.

If a hypersensitive or undersensitive judge is paired with someone of
little experience, then there is a much more difficult dilemma.

Andrew


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:28:45 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: You've got to be kidding

     Hi all,
     
     Our esteemed janitor, Pat, wrote:
     
     "Beer Judge Digest exists without the BJCPs sanction. We asked for it 
     but all but one of the BJCP board members we e-mailed ignored our 
     inquiry. And the one who replied was not in favor of BJD."
     
     Huh?  We don't have a regular newsletter (and offers to help produce 
     one were ignored) and we don't have the E-mail forum up and running.  
     How could a board member not want to sanction this digest?  Why did 
     the others ignore Pat's request?  Is this a secret society that even 
     the membership can't know about?
     
     A lot of AHA bashing goes on amongst homebrewers.  It would be quite 
     sad to see the BJCP become deserving of the same treatment.  I believe 
     it may be a good idea for Pat to post the E-mail addresses of the BJCP 
     Board, this way we can all write in with polite, constructive comments 
     about the direction in which the organization is lead.  Perhaps a few 
     dozen members' comments would get their attention.
     
     Concerned and confused,
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:44:44 -0400
From: Steven Lichtenberg <slichten at pci-net.com>
Subject: RE: Beer Judge Digest #4 (June 26, 1998)

In Beer Digest #4 Bob T  wrote:
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:14:03 EDT
> From: Btalk at aol.com
> Subject: NE nat'ls 1997

> Okay, new judgenet; sort of a different thread carryover from the old...

> There had been alot of beef recently about the 1998 Northeast Nationals 1st
> Round shortage of judges.

> I judged at the 1997 NE 1st round in Lancaster, PA and it wasn't until I got
> the recent  BJCP points update that I realized my points were missing from
> this event.
> Further investigation found that NO ONE who judged there got their points.
> Apparently the organizers totally blew off filing the judging report.
> BJCP claims they are awaiting notification from the AHA  before awarding the
> experience points earned there.

I was shocked and amazed when I contacted Russ about this issue.  I am glad to 
hear that this affected EVERYONE that judges this event.

> Judging that entire event was a real ball buster.

It was very tough.  Small space.  Lots of beers etc.

> I'm trying to make the wheel squeak, so lend your support if you judged in
> Lancaster in spring of 1997 and are interested in seeing the experience 
points
> recorded correctly.

Anyone know who to contact.  Maybe the host people kept copies of the sign in 
sheets that can be forwarded to BJCP???

Now I have a problem/question based on this.  Since I did not get the credit 
for this event yet, my rank is officially still Recognized.  The 1.5 points for 
the comp would give me the 5 needed for Certified.  Can I call myself Certified 
(based on actual experience points earned) or do I still need to put Recognized 
on score sheets (based on actual points recorded)?  While I really don't care 
either way, there is still some additional credibility in being Certified. 
 Also this does present some confusion in filling out score sheets.  Thanks for 
the input.

Anything else we can do to get these points credited, I am willing to fully 
support.

- ---S
  ^-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lichtenberg
Progressive Consultants, Inc.
"Your Progress is Our Business"

Phone: (703) 790-9316
Fax:     (703) 790-9248
email:  slichten at pci-net.com
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:55:24 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Exam beers

Mark S. Johnston <msjohnst at talon.net> writes:

> As Dave Sapsis pointed out, not all of the proctor sheets are always
> helpful. For two sets that I graded, I had no description of what was
> served beyond the style stated at the top of the sheets, and the proctors
> comments -- which occasionally looked like they were tasting two different
> beers!  I also graded a set where there were 3 proctors. Two of them
> scored similarly, while the third was as much as 12 points away! The beers
> were unrecognizable to me.

I think one has to start with the assumption that the proctors are skilled
judges:
Surely we all agree that one could not simply give 4 commercial beers
and have no proctors and just tell the exam graders which beers were used.
You would never trust your knowledge of the beers this much, I hope?  You
will need to rely on the proctors descriptions of the beers.

Given that the proctors are skilled, I think that you need to look at the
odd score in your example above as a useful piece of information.
Why was that judge so different?  Some beers are hard to judge.  Strange
combinations of not obviously bad flavors interacting in odd ways.  Perhaps
this judge is one of those hypersensitive types being discussed in another
thread.  This is your alert that you need to allow for variability in the
examinees' comments.

Now, maybe not all the procters were that skilled.  That's a different
thing altogether, but I would suggest that it would be better to try
to impose better proctor choice than to have the graders trying to second
guess a potentially off proctor by analyzing the proctor's scoring of a
beer the grader did not taste.

> My motivation for asking this is rooted in fairness to the examinees. I

For fairness to examinees I would say that you need to make sure you
take the variability of the proctors' comments fully into account when
you grade their judging, and not excuse some proctors' comments because
they don't fall in line with what you "know" the exam beer must have
tasted like.

> Okay, let's say the commercial entry is
> oxidized or lightstruck. The base beer is still a known quantity. If both
> proctors record "skunky" or "oxidized", the graders know that the sample
> was flawed based upon handling.

If both proctors record skunky, you don't need to know what beer was served.
Especially if one takes Dave's advice and doesn't allow the proctors to
discuss the beers, this is a strong statement that the beer is skunky, or
whatever else they write.  Unless you are going to start limiting the
commercial example to AB products I think it is a bit presumptuous to
believe that you know much about how the beer tastes from the label.
If you were told the commercial example was SNPA, you would expect some
description of hop aroma.  Unfortunately the hop aroma in that beer lasts
about a month in the bottle and is gone long before other obvious oxidation
characteristics set in (except maybe a slight malt harshness).  How would you
know?

I've been a proctor for two exams.  Both times the proctors were served
beers they knew nothing about and judged without conferring, ala Dave's
suggestion.  I really think this is the best way.  If you want a suggestion
for increasing the graders' ability to understand the exam beer, how about
having 3 proctors?  When two people disagree it is hard to know anything.
If 2 say one thing and the third says another, that is an indicator (but
certainly not proof) that the third one is off.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 23:25:16 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net>
Subject: 1997 AHA NHC Lancaster

Bob T wrote:

>I judged at the 1997 NE 1st round in Lancaster, PA and it wasn't until I
got
>the recent  BJCP points update that I realized my points were missing
from
>this event.
>Further investigation found that NO ONE who judged there got their
points.
>Apparently the organizers totally blew off filing the judging report.
>BJCP claims they are awaiting notification from the AHA  before awarding
the
>experience points earned there.

Let me nip this in the bud. I've already discussed this with others.
The judging report was filed with the AHA since it was an AHA competition.
The AHA apparently lost it, or at least was unable to file it with the
BJCP. About six months later, someone (from AHA or BJCP) realized the
points were missing and inquired of the organizer if they could be
resubmitted. As it turns out, all of the information was kept on a
database which was somehow corrupted during a software upgrade. So no
copies exist, and no data is available.
No one "blew off" anything. 
I know the organizers of the Lancaster event personally, and know that
they went out of their way to run a good, smooth, and fair competition.
They treated the judges at both the NHC and Moon Madness better than many
comps I've been to. The down side of this is that they became totally
burned out, and refused to do the NHC this year. They also cancelled Moon
Madness, and eventually closed  their Homebrew shop, although the latter
was a reluctant business decision.
I have contacted Russ W. with this information, and have been told that
they are "considering" what to do. I am sure that no matter what the
result, someone will be unhappy.

>Judging that entire event was a real ball buster. 

Perhaps you should try volunteering to organize next year's NHC. I assure
you that your balls will be sufficiently busted.


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #5, 06/27/98
*************************************
-------