Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA25142
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA25199
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 06/08/00 - 06/09/00
Message-ID: <SYNC4651B2C5A at synchro.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:02:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1
Status: RO

--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Re: Specified Info (Bob Devine)
RE: specified info (Houseman, David L)
--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net>
Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.52]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC4401B1E91
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:28:50 -0400
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.81.160.18])
          by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP
          id <20000608042844.UWYS2120.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net at worldnet.att.net>
          for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:28:44 +0000
Message-ID: <393F1FD4.2166EE8E at worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:23:48 -0600
From: Bob Devine <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Re: Specified Info
References: <20000607155336.DBZU6885.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net at webmail.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Mark Tumarkin asks:
> The new BJCP guidelines for meads state that the brewer MUST specify whether
> an entry is still or sparkling, and whether it is dry, semi-sweet or sweet.
> 
> If this information isn't specified, what are your feelings on how much the
> score should be dinged? I guess this becomes more critical if one of the
> entries would be considered for placing, as was the case in a recent
> competition I judged.

That's always a tough call.  Usually you need to get the
approval/interpretation of the competition's coordinators
on whether to:
  1) score it as it "should" be judged if it had been
     correctly entered
  2) score it as it was entered
  3) score it both ways

I tend to score it both ways.  More work, yes, but it
is fairer to the entrant and to the competition rules.
Usually the extra work is minimal unless it is a wildly
different style (over the years I've had pale ales in
the brown ale category, sparkling meads in still, etc)

--
Bob Devine
Shhh, I'm not brewing in Utah, uh-uh, not me, no way...

--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <david.houseman at unisys.com>
Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC4491B2796
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:55:16 -0400
Received: from trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com [192.63.236.1])
	by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19694;
	Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:51:31 GMT
Received: from US-TR-EXCH-1.tr.unisys.com by trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA13689 ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:51:13 GMT
Received: by us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <MNYZ7NF3>; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:54:28 -0400
Message-ID: <EB21C070AA75D311A0AC0090271EC45C0324752A at us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com>
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: RE: specified info
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:54:27 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


"I have always assumed that it was the competition organizer's job to
enforce
this sort of rule.  If the organizer does not disqualify the entry, then I
will
judge it on its merits, no matter what the bottle.  I may comment on the
bottle,
but as we know, the "bottle condition" section of the score sheet has zero
points attached to it. =Spencer"  

That's exactly what I, and most judges, do; we judge the beer on it's
merits, independent of the packaging, and comment on what we observe about
the bottle condition as additional feedback to the entrant.  As an
organizer, we set rules but then we are flexible in enforcing them.  Some
rules are hard rules, others are really guidelines.  Bottle size is one that
doesn't have an appreciable impact on flavor anyway but it it there more as
a convenience to the competition -- 22oz bottles don't fit well in 24-12oz
cases.  But as an organizer, I feel it more important to judge the beer and
provide the feedback than to be absolute in the case of bottle size.
Hopefully with some feedback on bottle size, the entrant will learn for the
next competition; who knows, it may be their very first entry in a
competition so they need a good experience to continue entering.

Dave
--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48--
Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA25142
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA25199
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 01:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 06/08/00 - 06/09/00
Message-ID: <SYNC4651B2C5A at synchro.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:02:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1
Status: RO

--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Re: Specified Info (Bob Devine)
RE: specified info (Houseman, David L)
--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net>
Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.52]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC4401B1E91
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:28:50 -0400
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.81.160.18])
          by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP
          id <20000608042844.UWYS2120.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net at worldnet.att.net>
          for <judge at synchro.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:28:44 +0000
Message-ID: <393F1FD4.2166EE8E at worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:23:48 -0600
From: Bob Devine <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Re: Specified Info
References: <20000607155336.DBZU6885.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net at webmail.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Mark Tumarkin asks:
> The new BJCP guidelines for meads state that the brewer MUST specify whether
> an entry is still or sparkling, and whether it is dry, semi-sweet or sweet.
> 
> If this information isn't specified, what are your feelings on how much the
> score should be dinged? I guess this becomes more critical if one of the
> entries would be considered for placing, as was the case in a recent
> competition I judged.

That's always a tough call.  Usually you need to get the
approval/interpretation of the competition's coordinators
on whether to:
  1) score it as it "should" be judged if it had been
     correctly entered
  2) score it as it was entered
  3) score it both ways

I tend to score it both ways.  More work, yes, but it
is fairer to the entrant and to the competition rules.
Usually the extra work is minimal unless it is a wildly
different style (over the years I've had pale ales in
the brown ale category, sparkling meads in still, etc)

--
Bob Devine
Shhh, I'm not brewing in Utah, uh-uh, not me, no way...

--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <david.houseman at unisys.com>
Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC4491B2796
          for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:55:16 -0400
Received: from trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com [192.63.236.1])
	by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19694;
	Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:51:31 GMT
Received: from US-TR-EXCH-1.tr.unisys.com by trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA13689 ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:51:13 GMT
Received: by us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <MNYZ7NF3>; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:54:28 -0400
Message-ID: <EB21C070AA75D311A0AC0090271EC45C0324752A at us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com>
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: RE: specified info
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:54:27 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


"I have always assumed that it was the competition organizer's job to
enforce
this sort of rule.  If the organizer does not disqualify the entry, then I
will
judge it on its merits, no matter what the bottle.  I may comment on the
bottle,
but as we know, the "bottle condition" section of the score sheet has zero
points attached to it. =Spencer"  

That's exactly what I, and most judges, do; we judge the beer on it's
merits, independent of the packaging, and comment on what we observe about
the bottle condition as additional feedback to the entrant.  As an
organizer, we set rules but then we are flexible in enforcing them.  Some
rules are hard rules, others are really guidelines.  Bottle size is one that
doesn't have an appreciable impact on flavor anyway but it it there more as
a convenience to the competition -- 22oz bottles don't fit well in 24-12oz
cases.  But as an organizer, I feel it more important to judge the beer and
provide the feedback than to be absolute in the case of bottle size.
Hopefully with some feedback on bottle size, the entrant will learn for the
next competition; who knows, it may be their very first entry in a
competition so they need a good experience to continue entering.

Dave
--Next_Part_SYNC4651B2C48--