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 BAA11382 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA12006 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:03:44 -0500 (EST) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 02/28/01 - 03/01/01 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:03:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Lack of Required Info (in special categories) (John B. Doherty) call for judges! Drunk Monk Challenge, March 24 (Steve McKenna) Re: Lack of required info, comp rules/judge directions (Gordon Strong) non-conforming entries (Randy Paul) Correct / Missing Entry Data (Schneider, Brett) --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from web5502.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.185]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC6792294819 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:07:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20010227210711.22296.qmail at web5502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [199.164.25.2] by web5502.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:07:11 PST Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:07:11 -0800 (PST) From: "John B. Doherty" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: Lack of Required Info (in special categories) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I agree with Mark's observations below - that many entries in the "special" categories (21, 22, 23, 24, Cider & Mead, etc.) often get judged with incomplete information. I'd guess that in most cases this is due to the entrant not specifying the necessary information. However, in a few cases, I believe it is the competition entry organizers who fail to pass along information submitted by the entrants. I've had this happen to me personally as an entrant on more than one occasion. I've entered a "Sticke" Altbier in category 24 (Specialty, Historical, Experimental) in several competitions, always giving plenty of information (Specialty strong "Sticke" Altbier, double decoction mashed). But depending on the information that gets to the judges of that flight, I've received some bad comments from judges. "What's experimental about an Altbier?" was one comment I recall. Come to find out that the flight sheet only said "Altbier", not "Strong Alt" or "Sticke Alt". So I can't blame the judges for that. But in a few cases judges do need to remember that the category is Specialty _or_ Historical, _or_ Experimental... the beer only has to be one of those three. I've also been "dinged" on a Witbier I entered because the judges said "licorice notes - possible contamination or choose different yeast", when I clearly stated on my entry form that Anise was among the spices I used. That said, it is the responsibility of the entrant to furnish complete information, and it is the responsibility of the competition organizers to make sure that special information gets passed on to the judges. The only issue then is how much information gets passed on - i.e., the judges probably don't need to know that the entrant brewed the beer on a Tuesday morning using a RIMS system vs. any other method. There should be interesting case study of this coming next month... the Boston Wort Processors next "In House" club only competition is a "kitchen sink" competition of categories 21, 22, 23 & 24. After the competition I'll make note of how well our entrants (and organizers) followed the "required additional information rules". Cheers, -John Doherty > -------------------------------------------------------- > From: Mark Tumarkin Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:25:30 -0500 > Subject: Lack of Required Info > > In several competitions that I've judge in recently, variations of the same > problem have come up. The problem concerns the lack of required info that the > brewer is supposed to provide. In a number of categories specific info is > required of the brewer - these requirements are underlined in the style > guidelines. > > For example, with mead "Entrants must specify whether the entry is still or > sparkling mead. Entrants must also indicate whether the mead is dry, > semi-sweet, or sweet". Other info is required for some beer styles, in fruit > Lambics the "Entrant must specify the type of fruit used in making the > entry." > S/H/V, Smoked beer, and Specialty/Exp/Hist all require certain information to > be given. > > My problem, and my question, is if the info is not specified how much do you > ding the score? Would you prevent such an entry from placing (if it would do > so otherwise)? Or maybe it's not all that serious an issue. But at this point > the guidelines do say the info MUST be specified. How do you deal with this > situation? > > In part, I feel this should be a problem for the competition registrar or > organizer - not the judges. They should look for this information in the few > styles where it's required. If it's not there, they could call the brewer and > fill in the missing info. I know this is extra work so if they don't have > time, maybe they should simply disqualify the entry. Or perhaps simply let > the > judges know how serious an infraction this is (or isn't) and how they'd like > us to deal with it at their competition. In a way, I hate being such a > stickler for rules/styles - but without them, what would a competition be? At > the very least, I think it's only fair that a level of consistency is > applied. > > What do you think? > > Mark Tumarkin > Hogtown Brewers > Gainesville, Fl > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.50]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC68032959AD for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:32:29 -0500 Received: from stm2.earthlink.net (ip80.chicago34.il.pub-ip.psi.net [38.33.42.80]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02983 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:32:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010228020635.00a10cd0 at 127.0.0.1> X-Sender: mckennst/mail.earthlink.net at 127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:31:41 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Steve McKenna Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: call for judges! Drunk Monk Challenge, March 24 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The Urban Knaves of Grain are holding their 3rd annual Drunk Monk Challenge competition on March 24 at Two Brothers Brewery in Warrenville, IL. Last year we received 276 entries, but pulled it off with the help of a big crew of judges. This year, in addition to being a stage in the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year, we're also a qualifying event in MCAB. So we're expecting even more entries. We need help from all you BJCP judges! We offer some unique benefits to our volunteers: A complimentary engraved tasting glass. Volunteers' party Friday 3/23. Potluck dinner at the brewery after the competition. And the ever-popular raffle. To volunteer, please contact me: mckennst at earthlink.net, (630)305-0554. No deadline, but you can save me some worrying by volunteering before March 10. Check out the competition website for more details, including the online entry form: http://www.sgu.net/ukg/dmc Cheers, Steve McKenna --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC6809295D24 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:14:21 -0500 Received: from buzzcut (ip29.dayton11.oh.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.203.29]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA25359 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:14:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000201c0a18f$446ca520$9700000a at dopplebock.com> From: "Gordon Strong" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Lack of required info, comp rules/judge directions Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:57:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Good discussion so far. One request: please don't include the whole original message in your reply. Excerpt if needed to illustrate a point, but including the whole message doesn't really add anything. I'm personally in favor of somewhat relaxed competition rules, but not where it matters to judges. For instance, I don't care if the bottle is brown, green or purple, if it's from Sam Adams, or if it has a swing top. As long as it doesn't have the brewer's name on it, who cares? I agree with the comment that a clean bottle shows the brewer took care and thinks presentation matters, but I've had wonderful homebrew from cruddy, pitted returnable bottles. When I've been competition organizer, sometimes picky judges have questioned some of these types of bottles. I always ask the same question, "Do you know who brewed it?" When they say "no", I say "then what's the problem?" I think judges are much more likely to know the specific beer of a local brewer by ingredients/type than by bottle. Example: a local brewer makes a wonderful atomic fireball mead (tastes just like the hot cinnamon candy). Put it in any container you like, but every judge from within a hundred mile radius knows who brewed it. I think it's more important to think about what you're trying to accomplish (preserve brewer anonymity) than what the rules might indicate (be bottle nazis). In recent competitions I've also relaxed the bottle requirement to include any kind of kegged beer (including in 2L bottles). I think as with bottles, if there's any chance that judges might be able to tell who brewed the beer you can deal with this through better stewarding. Let stewards pour the beer in glasses and bring it to the judges if there's any risk of identification. Another change is to relax the recipe requirement. Yes, it's nice to know what went into the beer, and it's nice to be able to publish winning recipes in your newsletter. But why does every brewer have to tell you whether they fermented in glass or plastic? If you want a recipe from a winning brewer, ask afterwards. I've never had a brewer refuse to share a winning recipe. But absence of a recipe shouldn't mean that you don't collect the information needed for judging. Work backwards from judging sheets to see what you need to ask entrants. In general, be sure to identify the style/sub-style, and if appropriate, special ingredients, carbonation, sweeteness. If the entrant forgets to include this information, it is the absolute responsibility of the competition organizer or registrar to get that data from the brewer. It is also the responsibility of the organizer to see that this special information makes it onto either the bottle label or the flight list so judges can find it. Too frequently, an entrant specifies this information but it somehow gets mis-handled or lost during registration. Finally, I also try to encourage brewers to specify additional style information for those styles where the categories don't provide sufficient differentiation. I've got two pet peeves: IPAs and strong bitters. There are clear style differences in English and American IPAs but the style guidelines don't recognize this. I'm tired of having wonderful English IPAs knocked down because they don't taste like a box of grapefruit or are more bitter than . And strong bitters are quite different from English pale ales. Go to England and try strong bitters on draft, then try the bottled export pale ales over here. Yet they are lumped into the same category. If you can give a judge some idea of which of the different unrecognized sub-styles you are trying to hit, they are more likely to judge it accurately. This last paragraph may be somewhat off-topic from the rest of the discussion; if we want to have a discussion about flaws in the mostly wonderful and vastly improved '99 style guidelines, let's break it off separately. The common thread to all my comments is to encourage brewers to enter competitions and to give judges the best chance to provide accurate feedback to the entrants. Whenever someone invests the time in organizing a competition, they should keep these two simple ideas in mind. I believe that taking care of your customers (i.e. the brewer/entrant), you will be successful in what you do (i.e. your competition). Everything else is incidental to the purpose of the event. Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH strongg at earthlink.net --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from shell.cais.net ([205.252.14.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC681129601F for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:42:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (randy at localhost) by shell.cais.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1SGggk50244 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:42:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from randy at computer.org) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.cais.net: randy owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:42:41 -0500 (EST) From: Randy Paul Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Sender: randy at shell.cais.net To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: non-conforming entries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The BJCP guidelines and score sheet do not give judges freedom to adjust a score based on incomplete entry information or how an entry is bottled. On the latter item, the form clearly indicates that there are NO points to be awarded for a bottle's appearance. I'm disappointed that some judges may be downgrading scores outside of the descriptors. There are many issues that erode the uniformity of our scores, this one is avoidable. However, competition organizers always have the freedom to deviate from guidelines. BJCP should provide guidelines in this area so that there is a standard from which to deviate (otherwise it's like ballot counters in Florida where everyone's free to interpret them on their own, and failure properly falls on those who determined the process). BJCP should encourage organizers to advertise a policy on non-conforming entries and to resolve issues as much as possible before the judging begins ("duh!"). When we, as judges, encounter a non-conforming entry, we should: 1) request the organizers to verify that the entry is non-conforming or provide specific direction, 2) absent a complete ruling from the organizers, the judges should agree to judge the entry as an X and they all should note the same decision at the top of the entry forms. 2a) I find it hard to imagine a way to make an educated guess about effervescence, fruit, herbs, etc. before opening the entry and considering the aroma and appearance so that would seem to be the time to concur. 2b) The guidelines should anticipate non-conforming entries get their appropriate score based on the standards, but organizers may choose to eliminate such entries from best of style or show. Because there is a range of non-conformance from serious to trivial, I recommend that the judges be given the freedom to make this decision - this point is worthy of debate. -- Randy --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from trend.bose.com ([4.19.252.131]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC68122960FD for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:45 -0500 Received: from juno.bose.com by mailhost.bose.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09342; Wed, 28 Feb 01 12:58:30 EST Received: by juno.bose.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:30 -0500 Message-Id: From: "Schneider, Brett" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Correct / Missing Entry Data Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:28 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message OK, I just re-read what I wrote below and it is awfully full of soapbox statements, opinions, long winded tirades, and just plain old too many words. But it still represents my opinions of the recent thread began about how entries are applied for at competitions, so if you have nothing better to do with your next 10 minutes, read away. Otherwise, ignore this posting and get on to better things.... I'd just like to add my two cents to this discussion, as it relates to the recently completed BHC7 competition, where I was judge coordinator and a participant at the data entry party. We logged over 360 entries into the FilemakerPro5 databases using 4 computers, 4 data entry people, and about 8 stewards to open packages and handle paperwork and bottle labeling. It took about 6 hours for that team to get through it all. That's a lot of paperwork, handling, organizational dancing, and correct bottle 'filing' work to fill the cases for the cellar at the comp in an organized manner. But a hell of a lot of fun and much hard work for those taking the time to volunteer their services. Of course in most cases and for most comps you deal with incomplete entry forms, missing information for the styles where _MUST_ provide information is missing, and all sorts of things. Personally I feel that asking the organizing team to contact every entrant about the missing specifics for their entries is quite a stretch. It is hard enough to get a hold of them about broken bottles, missing bottles and checks and all sorts of stuff. Weeding through the categories where _must supply_ information is identified as a requirement of entry and trying to teach people to read and tell them in person about what they needed to tell us and didn't would be very time consuming, add cost to the event for phone calls, and detract from the other must-do job requirements of the lead team. The BJCP style guides are very specific and use the proper wording to indicate what is needed to be known about these entries to have them judged "to style". I think from reading them and participating as an entrant that I fill out the forms and paperwork as expected. I feel others have the same ability and should do what is asked if they want to be considered with the other entries in a "style". I also agree that by following these directions the entries will and _should_ be judged with a more critical eye. If I tell you it is sparkling and it is not I deserve to be knocked in score for such action. Part of the fun of entering a comp is to tell the judges what they need to know to even the field and get feedback on your effort and learn to do it better or more correctly. After a certain amount of time the novelty of ribbons wears off and the value of the comp circuit is to get knowledgeable feedback about your products so you can continue to get better, rather than adding another ribbon to the wall and getting a coupon for free yeast. By not following the entry procedure requirements, many things happen during the judging, but I can't say it is my call if they are good or bad. I was asked the same questions stated in some prior replies to this thread during BHC7 and I told the interested judges my opinion, which is to following the guidelines and use them as judging instructions and criteria and hold the entrants to that standard. But I stated it in a way so as not to enforce my opinion, just that it was my opinion. I left it to each panel that asked (and not all of them did ask - see below) to make the decision themselves and judge all entries in similar fashion. It was a tough place to be for them by having poorly completed entries, but it was part of the task judges are asked to face. I think it is unfair to make them go through this by the way and that people who enter without doing the proper description are risking proper feedback. Some panels did not ask about the missing information and the entries done correctly were pinged hard and held accountable for their actions. Bravo. BUT the entries done poorly were not held to the same standard and benefits of doubt were given (I think not correctly so) and they scored better and placed better than accountable entries. Therefore the entries were not treated equally, but the don't ask don't tell law kept me from knowing about it day of the comp. So no justice served here and the people working outside of rules and requirements won the day. In the end the sport of brewing and judging beers should be looked at as sport and hobby and not the same as real world accountable activities, laws, taxation, and other places where rules and guidelines need to be followed for avoiding penalty. BUT the BJCP, the comp organizers, and judges, and ultimately the entrants should all act along the same lines. The weak link here, I think, and this is opinion, are the entrants as the BJCP and the style guidelines and the judges all talk and walk the same lingo, but are perpetually faced with entries outside of guides and expectations. The root cause lies within the answer to the question - why is entry paperwork being filled out incorrectly? Part of it is because of operator error and the paper world and letting entrants be allowed to make decisions. An electronic entry form, that says you can not submit the form because you did not enter the 'required' fields, like commercial internet forms, is one option. Lastly, the more realistic thing to keep track of is that homebrewing is a hobby. As with most hobbies people do things when they can and often at the last minute. No matter what dates, deadlines, and restrictions apply people will always ask for exceptions. This is part of all of us being unique. This is the real point the organizers face and they need to make all of this sort of stuff firm, no exceptions, and make that work. Then we can get into the correctness of entries. --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A-- 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 BAA11382 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA12006 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:03:44 -0500 (EST) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 02/28/01 - 03/01/01 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:03:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Lack of Required Info (in special categories) (John B. Doherty) call for judges! Drunk Monk Challenge, March 24 (Steve McKenna) Re: Lack of required info, comp rules/judge directions (Gordon Strong) non-conforming entries (Randy Paul) Correct / Missing Entry Data (Schneider, Brett) --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from web5502.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.185]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC6792294819 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:07:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20010227210711.22296.qmail at web5502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [199.164.25.2] by web5502.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:07:11 PST Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:07:11 -0800 (PST) From: "John B. Doherty" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: Lack of Required Info (in special categories) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I agree with Mark's observations below - that many entries in the "special" categories (21, 22, 23, 24, Cider & Mead, etc.) often get judged with incomplete information. I'd guess that in most cases this is due to the entrant not specifying the necessary information. However, in a few cases, I believe it is the competition entry organizers who fail to pass along information submitted by the entrants. I've had this happen to me personally as an entrant on more than one occasion. I've entered a "Sticke" Altbier in category 24 (Specialty, Historical, Experimental) in several competitions, always giving plenty of information (Specialty strong "Sticke" Altbier, double decoction mashed). But depending on the information that gets to the judges of that flight, I've received some bad comments from judges. "What's experimental about an Altbier?" was one comment I recall. Come to find out that the flight sheet only said "Altbier", not "Strong Alt" or "Sticke Alt". So I can't blame the judges for that. But in a few cases judges do need to remember that the category is Specialty _or_ Historical, _or_ Experimental... the beer only has to be one of those three. I've also been "dinged" on a Witbier I entered because the judges said "licorice notes - possible contamination or choose different yeast", when I clearly stated on my entry form that Anise was among the spices I used. That said, it is the responsibility of the entrant to furnish complete information, and it is the responsibility of the competition organizers to make sure that special information gets passed on to the judges. The only issue then is how much information gets passed on - i.e., the judges probably don't need to know that the entrant brewed the beer on a Tuesday morning using a RIMS system vs. any other method. There should be interesting case study of this coming next month... the Boston Wort Processors next "In House" club only competition is a "kitchen sink" competition of categories 21, 22, 23 & 24. After the competition I'll make note of how well our entrants (and organizers) followed the "required additional information rules". Cheers, -John Doherty > -------------------------------------------------------- > From: Mark Tumarkin Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:25:30 -0500 > Subject: Lack of Required Info > > In several competitions that I've judge in recently, variations of the same > problem have come up. The problem concerns the lack of required info that the > brewer is supposed to provide. In a number of categories specific info is > required of the brewer - these requirements are underlined in the style > guidelines. > > For example, with mead "Entrants must specify whether the entry is still or > sparkling mead. Entrants must also indicate whether the mead is dry, > semi-sweet, or sweet". Other info is required for some beer styles, in fruit > Lambics the "Entrant must specify the type of fruit used in making the > entry." > S/H/V, Smoked beer, and Specialty/Exp/Hist all require certain information to > be given. > > My problem, and my question, is if the info is not specified how much do you > ding the score? Would you prevent such an entry from placing (if it would do > so otherwise)? Or maybe it's not all that serious an issue. But at this point > the guidelines do say the info MUST be specified. How do you deal with this > situation? > > In part, I feel this should be a problem for the competition registrar or > organizer - not the judges. They should look for this information in the few > styles where it's required. If it's not there, they could call the brewer and > fill in the missing info. I know this is extra work so if they don't have > time, maybe they should simply disqualify the entry. Or perhaps simply let > the > judges know how serious an infraction this is (or isn't) and how they'd like > us to deal with it at their competition. In a way, I hate being such a > stickler for rules/styles - but without them, what would a competition be? At > the very least, I think it's only fair that a level of consistency is > applied. > > What do you think? > > Mark Tumarkin > Hogtown Brewers > Gainesville, Fl > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.50]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC68032959AD for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:32:29 -0500 Received: from stm2.earthlink.net (ip80.chicago34.il.pub-ip.psi.net [38.33.42.80]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02983 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:32:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010228020635.00a10cd0 at 127.0.0.1> X-Sender: mckennst/mail.earthlink.net at 127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:31:41 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Steve McKenna Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: call for judges! Drunk Monk Challenge, March 24 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The Urban Knaves of Grain are holding their 3rd annual Drunk Monk Challenge competition on March 24 at Two Brothers Brewery in Warrenville, IL. Last year we received 276 entries, but pulled it off with the help of a big crew of judges. This year, in addition to being a stage in the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year, we're also a qualifying event in MCAB. So we're expecting even more entries. We need help from all you BJCP judges! We offer some unique benefits to our volunteers: A complimentary engraved tasting glass. Volunteers' party Friday 3/23. Potluck dinner at the brewery after the competition. And the ever-popular raffle. To volunteer, please contact me: mckennst at earthlink.net, (630)305-0554. No deadline, but you can save me some worrying by volunteering before March 10. Check out the competition website for more details, including the online entry form: http://www.sgu.net/ukg/dmc Cheers, Steve McKenna --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC6809295D24 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:14:21 -0500 Received: from buzzcut (ip29.dayton11.oh.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.203.29]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA25359 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:14:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000201c0a18f$446ca520$9700000a at dopplebock.com> From: "Gordon Strong" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Lack of required info, comp rules/judge directions Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:57:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Good discussion so far. One request: please don't include the whole original message in your reply. Excerpt if needed to illustrate a point, but including the whole message doesn't really add anything. I'm personally in favor of somewhat relaxed competition rules, but not where it matters to judges. For instance, I don't care if the bottle is brown, green or purple, if it's from Sam Adams, or if it has a swing top. As long as it doesn't have the brewer's name on it, who cares? I agree with the comment that a clean bottle shows the brewer took care and thinks presentation matters, but I've had wonderful homebrew from cruddy, pitted returnable bottles. When I've been competition organizer, sometimes picky judges have questioned some of these types of bottles. I always ask the same question, "Do you know who brewed it?" When they say "no", I say "then what's the problem?" I think judges are much more likely to know the specific beer of a local brewer by ingredients/type than by bottle. Example: a local brewer makes a wonderful atomic fireball mead (tastes just like the hot cinnamon candy). Put it in any container you like, but every judge from within a hundred mile radius knows who brewed it. I think it's more important to think about what you're trying to accomplish (preserve brewer anonymity) than what the rules might indicate (be bottle nazis). In recent competitions I've also relaxed the bottle requirement to include any kind of kegged beer (including in 2L bottles). I think as with bottles, if there's any chance that judges might be able to tell who brewed the beer you can deal with this through better stewarding. Let stewards pour the beer in glasses and bring it to the judges if there's any risk of identification. Another change is to relax the recipe requirement. Yes, it's nice to know what went into the beer, and it's nice to be able to publish winning recipes in your newsletter. But why does every brewer have to tell you whether they fermented in glass or plastic? If you want a recipe from a winning brewer, ask afterwards. I've never had a brewer refuse to share a winning recipe. But absence of a recipe shouldn't mean that you don't collect the information needed for judging. Work backwards from judging sheets to see what you need to ask entrants. In general, be sure to identify the style/sub-style, and if appropriate, special ingredients, carbonation, sweeteness. If the entrant forgets to include this information, it is the absolute responsibility of the competition organizer or registrar to get that data from the brewer. It is also the responsibility of the organizer to see that this special information makes it onto either the bottle label or the flight list so judges can find it. Too frequently, an entrant specifies this information but it somehow gets mis-handled or lost during registration. Finally, I also try to encourage brewers to specify additional style information for those styles where the categories don't provide sufficient differentiation. I've got two pet peeves: IPAs and strong bitters. There are clear style differences in English and American IPAs but the style guidelines don't recognize this. I'm tired of having wonderful English IPAs knocked down because they don't taste like a box of grapefruit or are more bitter than . And strong bitters are quite different from English pale ales. Go to England and try strong bitters on draft, then try the bottled export pale ales over here. Yet they are lumped into the same category. If you can give a judge some idea of which of the different unrecognized sub-styles you are trying to hit, they are more likely to judge it accurately. This last paragraph may be somewhat off-topic from the rest of the discussion; if we want to have a discussion about flaws in the mostly wonderful and vastly improved '99 style guidelines, let's break it off separately. The common thread to all my comments is to encourage brewers to enter competitions and to give judges the best chance to provide accurate feedback to the entrants. Whenever someone invests the time in organizing a competition, they should keep these two simple ideas in mind. I believe that taking care of your customers (i.e. the brewer/entrant), you will be successful in what you do (i.e. your competition). Everything else is incidental to the purpose of the event. Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH strongg at earthlink.net --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from shell.cais.net ([205.252.14.8]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC681129601F for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:42:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (randy at localhost) by shell.cais.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1SGggk50244 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:42:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from randy at computer.org) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.cais.net: randy owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:42:41 -0500 (EST) From: Randy Paul Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Sender: randy at shell.cais.net To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: non-conforming entries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The BJCP guidelines and score sheet do not give judges freedom to adjust a score based on incomplete entry information or how an entry is bottled. On the latter item, the form clearly indicates that there are NO points to be awarded for a bottle's appearance. I'm disappointed that some judges may be downgrading scores outside of the descriptors. There are many issues that erode the uniformity of our scores, this one is avoidable. However, competition organizers always have the freedom to deviate from guidelines. BJCP should provide guidelines in this area so that there is a standard from which to deviate (otherwise it's like ballot counters in Florida where everyone's free to interpret them on their own, and failure properly falls on those who determined the process). BJCP should encourage organizers to advertise a policy on non-conforming entries and to resolve issues as much as possible before the judging begins ("duh!"). When we, as judges, encounter a non-conforming entry, we should: 1) request the organizers to verify that the entry is non-conforming or provide specific direction, 2) absent a complete ruling from the organizers, the judges should agree to judge the entry as an X and they all should note the same decision at the top of the entry forms. 2a) I find it hard to imagine a way to make an educated guess about effervescence, fruit, herbs, etc. before opening the entry and considering the aroma and appearance so that would seem to be the time to concur. 2b) The guidelines should anticipate non-conforming entries get their appropriate score based on the standards, but organizers may choose to eliminate such entries from best of style or show. Because there is a range of non-conformance from serious to trivial, I recommend that the judges be given the freedom to make this decision - this point is worthy of debate. -- Randy --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from trend.bose.com ([4.19.252.131]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC68122960FD for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:45 -0500 Received: from juno.bose.com by mailhost.bose.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09342; Wed, 28 Feb 01 12:58:30 EST Received: by juno.bose.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:30 -0500 Message-Id: From: "Schneider, Brett" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Correct / Missing Entry Data Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:28 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message OK, I just re-read what I wrote below and it is awfully full of soapbox statements, opinions, long winded tirades, and just plain old too many words. But it still represents my opinions of the recent thread began about how entries are applied for at competitions, so if you have nothing better to do with your next 10 minutes, read away. Otherwise, ignore this posting and get on to better things.... I'd just like to add my two cents to this discussion, as it relates to the recently completed BHC7 competition, where I was judge coordinator and a participant at the data entry party. We logged over 360 entries into the FilemakerPro5 databases using 4 computers, 4 data entry people, and about 8 stewards to open packages and handle paperwork and bottle labeling. It took about 6 hours for that team to get through it all. That's a lot of paperwork, handling, organizational dancing, and correct bottle 'filing' work to fill the cases for the cellar at the comp in an organized manner. But a hell of a lot of fun and much hard work for those taking the time to volunteer their services. Of course in most cases and for most comps you deal with incomplete entry forms, missing information for the styles where _MUST_ provide information is missing, and all sorts of things. Personally I feel that asking the organizing team to contact every entrant about the missing specifics for their entries is quite a stretch. It is hard enough to get a hold of them about broken bottles, missing bottles and checks and all sorts of stuff. Weeding through the categories where _must supply_ information is identified as a requirement of entry and trying to teach people to read and tell them in person about what they needed to tell us and didn't would be very time consuming, add cost to the event for phone calls, and detract from the other must-do job requirements of the lead team. The BJCP style guides are very specific and use the proper wording to indicate what is needed to be known about these entries to have them judged "to style". I think from reading them and participating as an entrant that I fill out the forms and paperwork as expected. I feel others have the same ability and should do what is asked if they want to be considered with the other entries in a "style". I also agree that by following these directions the entries will and _should_ be judged with a more critical eye. If I tell you it is sparkling and it is not I deserve to be knocked in score for such action. Part of the fun of entering a comp is to tell the judges what they need to know to even the field and get feedback on your effort and learn to do it better or more correctly. After a certain amount of time the novelty of ribbons wears off and the value of the comp circuit is to get knowledgeable feedback about your products so you can continue to get better, rather than adding another ribbon to the wall and getting a coupon for free yeast. By not following the entry procedure requirements, many things happen during the judging, but I can't say it is my call if they are good or bad. I was asked the same questions stated in some prior replies to this thread during BHC7 and I told the interested judges my opinion, which is to following the guidelines and use them as judging instructions and criteria and hold the entrants to that standard. But I stated it in a way so as not to enforce my opinion, just that it was my opinion. I left it to each panel that asked (and not all of them did ask - see below) to make the decision themselves and judge all entries in similar fashion. It was a tough place to be for them by having poorly completed entries, but it was part of the task judges are asked to face. I think it is unfair to make them go through this by the way and that people who enter without doing the proper description are risking proper feedback. Some panels did not ask about the missing information and the entries done correctly were pinged hard and held accountable for their actions. Bravo. BUT the entries done poorly were not held to the same standard and benefits of doubt were given (I think not correctly so) and they scored better and placed better than accountable entries. Therefore the entries were not treated equally, but the don't ask don't tell law kept me from knowing about it day of the comp. So no justice served here and the people working outside of rules and requirements won the day. In the end the sport of brewing and judging beers should be looked at as sport and hobby and not the same as real world accountable activities, laws, taxation, and other places where rules and guidelines need to be followed for avoiding penalty. BUT the BJCP, the comp organizers, and judges, and ultimately the entrants should all act along the same lines. The weak link here, I think, and this is opinion, are the entrants as the BJCP and the style guidelines and the judges all talk and walk the same lingo, but are perpetually faced with entries outside of guides and expectations. The root cause lies within the answer to the question - why is entry paperwork being filled out incorrectly? Part of it is because of operator error and the paper world and letting entrants be allowed to make decisions. An electronic entry form, that says you can not submit the form because you did not enter the 'required' fields, like commercial internet forms, is one option. Lastly, the more realistic thing to keep track of is that homebrewing is a hobby. As with most hobbies people do things when they can and often at the last minute. No matter what dates, deadlines, and restrictions apply people will always ask for exceptions. This is part of all of us being unique. This is the real point the organizers face and they need to make all of this sort of stuff firm, no exceptions, and make that work. Then we can get into the correctness of entries. --Next_Part_SYNC6825296D0A--