Subject: Digest for the period 2/21/02 - 2/22/02 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:00:06 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB" --Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Judges' responsibilities (Great Scott!) (David Houseman) Judging responsibilities (awarding ribbons) (John B. Doherty) Re: Judges' responsibilities (Joel Plutchak) Not giving ribbons / Specifying the underlying style (David Harsh) Judges' Responsibilities (Norman Dickenson) RE: Judge Responsibilities (Stephen Johnson) Continuing Education Committee (Bill Slack) Seattle are Homebrew Competition (Lori Brown) --Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB" --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.18]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5399434B05 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:50:52 -0500 Received: from user-2inim69.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.88.201] helo=winxp) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16dsgU-0000Mn-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:50:51 -0800 Message-ID: <019e01c1bad6$5ba2fb20$0100a8c0`at`winxp> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "David Houseman" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Judges' responsibilities (Great Scott!) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:50:34 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Sorry Scott, now I have to disagree with you. I won't argue the logic of whether an entry should or should not receive a ribbon; you are right in that regard. The point that Norm made that I agree with is that the responsibility for deciding whether an entry gets a ribbon or not or is disqualified or not rests with the competition organizer, not individual judges. The judges should judge, make the appropriate comments reflecting your observations and select the order of finish. If every judge took it upon herself/himself to decide the criteria for disqualification or awarding of ribbons, it could get pretty chaotic. Now, the organizer may pass on his/her authority by telling all judges that one must get at least a 35 for a blue ribbon, 30 for a red and 25 for a yellow, or whatever the criteria might be, but it's not up to each individual judge but rather the organizer. It's the organizer that sets the rules and administers them. If you feel a beer should be disqualified for some reason ask the organizer. Some rules may be more hard and fast than others. Some competitions may be stricter to the rules than others. In soccer, the referee doesn't call a foul for every technical infraction of the rules, we ignore those that are trifling and don't have an impact on the game. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web20403.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.226.122]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5401434B6A for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:02:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20020221140203.80152.qmail`at`web20403.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.245.160.2] by web20403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:02:03 PST Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:02:03 -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: Judging responsibilities (awarding ribbons) 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 Whoa... I'm not sure if its just a New England thing, but I believe that Scott Kaplan is absolutely right on the issue of judges awarding ribbons. The Organizer(s) of a competition may set lower point limits on whether an entry should be awarded a "place", but it is the judges that score the beer and thus decide whether or not a beer gets a ribbon. If the lower limit for an award is say, 25 points, and the best beer in the flight scores a 26, its absolutely up to the judges to decide whether it gets a first place ribbon or just a third place ribbon with no first or second awarded. Maybe upon further consideration, the judges decide that they were a little tough on scoring it initially, and decide give it a "first"... or maybe they don't. Who's really qualified to make that decision except the judges that judged the beer? Certainly not the Organizer, who at best has no knowledge of the entries as they were judged, and at worst might know who the entries were brewed by! Speaking as a competition Organizer, I leave this matter wholly in the judges hands, and simply advise them of their options and let them decide. The ribbons are paid for, whether we award them all or not. Now don't get me wrong, I love to see all three places awarded in every category, and I'm not against an average beer (that was maybve less average than some of the others) receiving a 3rd, 2nd or even 1st place award. But if the judges don't think it is merited, then that settles it. The GABF is a prime example of judges not awarding all places to each category, and its not for lack of entries. And if I'm not mistaken, its the judges (not Charlie P. or Paul G. or any of the AOB staff) who decide that no "Gold" (hypothetically) gets awarded in "Brown Ales" this year. Bottom line - let us judges judge. Cheers, -John Doherty Lakeville, MA > From: Norman Dickenson Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:14:35 -0800 > Subject: Judging Responsibilities > > I have to disagree. It isn't and never has been the > judges perogative whether or not ribbons are awarded at a competition. > Neither can they disqualify a beer. They may, of course, offer > recommendations, but it seems to me that the award of prizes is strictly the > purview of the competition organizer. The judges' role is simply to judge > the beer and assign a score, or comparatively rank beers in the case of BOS > or mini BOS. > > Norman Dickenson >>> Scott Kaplan posted: >>> >>>The judges have the right to award or not award that beer any specific >>>ribbon they choose, and not award the rest of the ribbons. >>> >>>This is of course up to the judging panel too. Judges always have the >>>discretion to award or not award ribbons. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from staff3.cso.uiuc.edu ([128.174.5.54]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5401434B83 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:10:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (plutchak`at`localhost [127.0.0.1]) by staff3.cso.uiuc.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g1LEAXR13782 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:10:34 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:10:33 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Plutchak Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-X-Sender: To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Judges' responsibilities Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Scott Kaplan wrote: > Norman Dickerson posted in reply to my comment about judge's right > to not award ribbons. [...] My turn to disagree with Mr. Dickerson. > Let's say that a panel has judged their beers and none score above the > mid-twenties (trust me, it's happened). Does anyone honestly believe > that the top three beers in this scoring range deserve ribbons? That's irrelevant. Competition staff awards ribbons. The job of the judge, unless otherwise dictated by the staff, is simply to judge the beer and award a score (and usually ranking). What happens after that is strictly up to competition staff. > As to disqualification, if an entry does not conform to the entry rules > (like plain bottles with no labels), the judge should evaluate the beer > anyway, but disqualify it from ribbons because the entrant violated the > stated rules. Again, this is something done by the competition staff. Judges shouldn't be disqualifying entries. At most they should point out potential problems with an entry to the competition staff, who will take whatever action they deem appropriate. For example, when we run our competition we don't get uptight about rules-- if at all possible we'll see that entries get judged fairly. If somebody uses a bottle with raised lettering, we expect the judges to score it like any other beer, and would not be happy with a judge who took it upon herself to disqualify it. On the flipside, when I judge I expect the competition staff to address any concerns that come from the judging table. Joel Plutchak Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mta01.fuse.net ([216.68.2.90]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5402434C10 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:29:50 -0500 Received: from fuse.net ([216.196.128.189]) by mta01.fuse.net (InterMail vM.5.01.03.01 201-253-122-118-101-20010319) with ESMTP id <20020221152949.BWNW20041.mta01.fuse.net`at`fuse.net> for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:29:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3C75126D.90425BC6`at`fuse.net> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:29:52 -0500 From: David Harsh Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Not giving ribbons / Specifying the underlying style References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Great Scott Kaplan wrote: > Let's look at this from a pure scholastic grading system. > 90-100% is an A, 80-89% is a B, 70-79% a C, and so forth. I guess you never saw the distributions on any of my exams ;) I agree that there should probably be some cutoff below which ribbons are not given. However, the academic comparison suggests that the average score received is in that C range, namely a 37.5. I've never judged in a competition where the average score was that high. Should the score just have to be "above average"? For the category or for the competition? What if the three pickiest judges are judging a flight - do no ribbons go out compared to the table where the average (for no particular reason) is 5 points higher? Remember, I agree with the premise of not awarding ribbons below a certain point, but I am really skeptical of academic approaches to determining cutoff points. Personally, I like 25 as a cutoff for the typical competition. It isn't like we're handing out Nobel prizes. ------------- I was reading the style guidelines after the recent "specifying underlying style" discussion and noticed something - the guidelines state that the brewer should specify the base style. It then goes on to say: "If the base beer is a classic style, the original style should come through in aroma and flavor." My question is, if the base beer is specified and ISN'T a classic style, what kind of style is it? In that case, what is expected of the aroma and flavor? It could actually be argued that "chipotle ale" is a style, just a non-classic style. Is there some meaning in the guidelines that I'm missing? Dave Harsh dharsh`at`fuse.net Cincinnati, OH Bloatarian Brewing League --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from libaxp.sonoma.edu ([130.157.2.3]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5403434D21 for Judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:55:04 -0500 Received: from conversion.sonoma.edu by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) id <01KEJ3F1KMO093BKTT`at`SONOMA.EDU> for Judge at synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:53:59 PST Received: from ndickenson ([130.157.152.111]) by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) with SMTP id <01KEJ3EP0AIM94EOPK`at`SONOMA.EDU> for Judge at synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:53:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:54:16 -0800 From: Norman Dickenson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Judges' Responsibilities To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <00c601c1baf8$65ba52d0$6f989d82`at`sonoma.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message > From: Great Scott! Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:40:22 -0500 > Subject: Judges' responsibilities > > > Norman Dickerson posted in reply to my comment about judge's right to not > award ribbons. > > > > >I have to disagree. It isn't and never has been the > >judges perogative whether or not ribbons are awarded at a competition. > >Neither can they disqualify a beer. They may, of course, offer > >recommendations, but it seems to me that the award of prizes is strictly the > >purview of the competition organizer. The judges' role is simply to judge > >the beer and assign a score, or comparatively rank beers in the case of BOS > >or mini BOS. > > My turn to disagree with Mr. Dickerson. Let's look at this from a somewhat > objective view on a somewhat subjective experience. > > Let's say that a panel has judged their beers and none score above the > mid-twenties (trust me, it's happened). Does anyone honestly believe that > the top three beers in this scoring range deserve ribbons? These scores are > rated simply as "Good," while "Very Good," "Excellent" and "Outstanding" > are above them. I would go so far (not saying that I *have* gone so far) as > to not award a first place ribbon at all, and take the top two scores and > make them second and third place (depending on score). > > Let's look at this from a pure scholastic grading system. 90-100% is an A, > 80-89% is a B, 70-79% a C, and so forth. Every teacher and professor I've > ever had subscribed to this convention. Scoring a beer in the mid or even > upper 20's out of a 50 point scale means it scores in the high 40% area. > Clearly a failing grade. Even if we stretch things a bit because very few > beers if any at all score in the 40s (on the 50 scale), reserving first > place ribbons for those beers that score 30 or higher seems to me the right > thing to do. > > As to disqualification, if an entry does not conform to the entry rules > (like plain bottles with no labels), the judge should evaluate the beer > anyway, but disqualify it from ribbons because the entrant violated the > stated rules. > > Scott Kaplan > I am in total agreement with Scott's argument that poorly scoring beers do not deserve to win a ribbon. I disagree that judges are empowered to make that decision or the decision to disqualify a beer. Judges are guests of a competition and invited to judge beers, not run the competition. If a judge identifies a rules infraction, it is his/her duty to bring it to the attention of the Organizer. Nothing more. If minimum qualifying scores are required to win a ribbon/prize, that should be identified up front in the competition rules, which are developed by the Organizer. It simply is not a fair practice to create new rules after entries are submitted. That's a guaranteed way to piss people off. Norman Dickenson --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.76]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5410434FCE for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:22:25 -0500 Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1LNMKf11517 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1LNMJ211508 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g1LNMIv10660 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:19 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020221172230.00f537ac`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:30 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: RE: Judge Responsibilities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I'm sorry in advance for the lengthy post that follows, but I feel compelled to make a few comments. Having been a competition organizer for the past five years, as well as a judge coordinator most recently, I have to add my .02 in response to several things that Scott Kaplan brings up in his post regarding judge responsibilities. His comments were made in regard to some things Norman Dickerson wrote about the awarding of prizes, etc.: Scott, as an academician, I think your comparison of beer competitions (homebrew in particular) to academic grading systems is a bit of a stretch. Even if one were to merely compare these scales at a basic measurement theory and test construction level, some real differences occur. On the beer scale, although the BJCP does not have an "average" or "median" score or range, I am making an assumption that most judges would agree that a beer that scores a 25 (or in that general range) is more or less in that range of being called "average" or maybe even "mediocre". This may not be a correct assumption, but based on the scores of beers in our competitions over the past years, this would probably be true statistically. If you were to convert this score to a 100 point scale, similar to a grading scale used by teachers (to go with your analogy), an average beer score of 25 would equate to an average grade of 50. Now, last time I checked, a 50 is considered a failure on a grading scale. In actuality, in most grading systems that I am familiar with, anything below a 70 is considered a failure. Again, to go with your grading analogy, a beer scoring a 35 (a score of 70 converted to a 50 point scale) would be a failure! I don't know about you, but anytime I give a beer a score of 35, I'm pretty excited about it, and it typically means that this beer is very drinkable and does a very good job of matching the style. As a brewer, I'm always excited about one of my entries if it scores a 35 and certainly don't consider it a "failure". I also don't think a beer scoring a 19 on the current scale is a "failure". However, when a beer is considered "problematic," and scores a 13 or below, then I think that beverage may be considered a failure in representing that particular style. More importantly, though, in the bigger scheme of things, the purposes of grading student performance are very different than those reasons for evaluating and scoring beer in a competition. The way I see it, the reasons to give grades in school are to provide teachers, students, and significant others a means of monitoring student achievement towards mastery of the performance of some predetermined objective(s). Judging beer, on the other hand, involves giving feedback to a brewer about the various characteristics of that beer, assigning a score to that feedback, and rewarding excellence in their efforts by giving recognition to entries that score better than others. I think we might be better off making a comparison between beer judging and awarding prizes/ribbons to some of the judging and awarding of medals in the Olympics out in Salt Lake City. Let's use the analogy of the judging going on with the figure skating event, or any of the snowboarding events. There, the judges have some pre-determined criteria and scales that they go by in determining a final "score" for any given performance. Let's say that instead of all of the performers getting high marks of 6 for their elements in the long program, everyone turns in a mediocre performance that year and they all score 3's instead. Do you think the Olympic Committee would allow the judges to say, "Well, none of these skaters came close to what Michelle Kwan did last time with those 5.9's and 6's, so we're not going to award a gold medal this year." I don't think so. Regardless of the relative levels of performance from one time to the next, they still award a gold, silver, and bronze medal for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. I think the same goes for a homebrewing competition, where regardless of score, we should still give awards for all of the places. I realize some may say that you run the risk of rewarding mediocrity, but the idea is that we are awarding prizes for best, next best, and so-on. Most ribbons say 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, not 1st -- as long as it is great -- place. So, unless you say something in advance that your competition is only going to reward excellence, and you give a value to that level (e.g., only beers scoring higher than 30 can earn a 1st place), then I don't think judges have the right or even priveledge of making that kind of decision. Those decisions should be made up front by the competition organizers and made public prior to an event in the rules and regulations, and not made after the fact as the event progresses. Sorry for taking up so much space here, but I felt like these things needed to be addressed. Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN Research Assistant Professor Dept. of Special Education Vanderbilt University --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5410435024 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:26:46 -0500 Received: from slack.org (slack.org [199.125.107.152]) by mercury.mv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/mem-20020217) with ESMTP id SAA28848 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:26:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C758231.EA788701`at`slack.org> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:26:41 -0500 From: Bill Slack Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD EBM-Compaq (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Continuing Education Committee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The Board of Directors of the Beer Judge Certification Program has established a Continuing Education Committee charged with developing a Continuing Education Program which is in keeping with the mission of the BJCP. Norman Dickenson and Bruce Brode have been appointed as co-chairs of the committee. The results of the work of this committee will be presented to the Board of Directors for review and consideration. The co-chairs are looking for several volunteers from the membership of the BJCP who are interested in serving on this committee. Those interested should send a short resume and a statement of interest to Norman Dickenson west_rep`at`bjcp.org Newer members are especially encouraged to participate. Bill Slack President and Representative for the Northeast Region Board of Directors Beer Judge Certification Program, Inc. --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.47]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC541043503B for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:34:48 -0500 Received: from LORIDESK ([12.82.131.225]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020221233443.JILZ11926.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net`at`LORIDESK> for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:34:43 +0000 From: "Lori Brown" 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: Seattle are Homebrew Competition Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:34:25 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c1bb30$4c3c0230$6501a8c0`at`LORIDESK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The 6th Annual St. Patrick's Cascadia Cup Homebrew Competition will be held March 9th at Hales Ales in Seattle, Washington. All styles of beer, mead and cider will be judged according to the current BJCP guidelines. Judges and steward are encouraged to sign up online at www.cascadebrewersguild.org Anyone wishing to enter their homebrewed beverages can also sign up online at www.cascadebrewersguild.org The entry fee is $6 per entry. Enter as many times as you would like, but please limit your entries to one per subcategory. Prizes this year include $100 gift certificate for the best of show entry, along with gift certificates of $30, $20, $10 (first, second, and third place) in each flight. See website for Western Washington homebrew shops that are accepting entries. Gift certificate awards are redeemable at these shops either in person or for mail orders. Entries are due from now until March 3rd. For more information check out the website or contact Lori Brown, 2002 Competition Organizer, at loribrown`at`worldnet.att.net 425-771-7602 Good luck! --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB-- --Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/21/02 - 2/22/02 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:00:06 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB" --Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Judges' responsibilities (Great Scott!) (David Houseman) Judging responsibilities (awarding ribbons) (John B. Doherty) Re: Judges' responsibilities (Joel Plutchak) Not giving ribbons / Specifying the underlying style (David Harsh) Judges' Responsibilities (Norman Dickenson) RE: Judge Responsibilities (Stephen Johnson) Continuing Education Committee (Bill Slack) Seattle are Homebrew Competition (Lori Brown) --Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB" --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.18]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5399434B05 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:50:52 -0500 Received: from user-2inim69.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.88.201] helo=winxp) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16dsgU-0000Mn-00 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:50:51 -0800 Message-ID: <019e01c1bad6$5ba2fb20$0100a8c0`at`winxp> Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" From: "David Houseman" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: Re: Judges' responsibilities (Great Scott!) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:50:34 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Sorry Scott, now I have to disagree with you. I won't argue the logic of whether an entry should or should not receive a ribbon; you are right in that regard. The point that Norm made that I agree with is that the responsibility for deciding whether an entry gets a ribbon or not or is disqualified or not rests with the competition organizer, not individual judges. The judges should judge, make the appropriate comments reflecting your observations and select the order of finish. If every judge took it upon herself/himself to decide the criteria for disqualification or awarding of ribbons, it could get pretty chaotic. Now, the organizer may pass on his/her authority by telling all judges that one must get at least a 35 for a blue ribbon, 30 for a red and 25 for a yellow, or whatever the criteria might be, but it's not up to each individual judge but rather the organizer. It's the organizer that sets the rules and administers them. If you feel a beer should be disqualified for some reason ask the organizer. Some rules may be more hard and fast than others. Some competitions may be stricter to the rules than others. In soccer, the referee doesn't call a foul for every technical infraction of the rules, we ignore those that are trifling and don't have an impact on the game. Dave Houseman --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web20403.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.226.122]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5401434B6A for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:02:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20020221140203.80152.qmail`at`web20403.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.245.160.2] by web20403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:02:03 PST Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:02:03 -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: Judging responsibilities (awarding ribbons) 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 Whoa... I'm not sure if its just a New England thing, but I believe that Scott Kaplan is absolutely right on the issue of judges awarding ribbons. The Organizer(s) of a competition may set lower point limits on whether an entry should be awarded a "place", but it is the judges that score the beer and thus decide whether or not a beer gets a ribbon. If the lower limit for an award is say, 25 points, and the best beer in the flight scores a 26, its absolutely up to the judges to decide whether it gets a first place ribbon or just a third place ribbon with no first or second awarded. Maybe upon further consideration, the judges decide that they were a little tough on scoring it initially, and decide give it a "first"... or maybe they don't. Who's really qualified to make that decision except the judges that judged the beer? Certainly not the Organizer, who at best has no knowledge of the entries as they were judged, and at worst might know who the entries were brewed by! Speaking as a competition Organizer, I leave this matter wholly in the judges hands, and simply advise them of their options and let them decide. The ribbons are paid for, whether we award them all or not. Now don't get me wrong, I love to see all three places awarded in every category, and I'm not against an average beer (that was maybve less average than some of the others) receiving a 3rd, 2nd or even 1st place award. But if the judges don't think it is merited, then that settles it. The GABF is a prime example of judges not awarding all places to each category, and its not for lack of entries. And if I'm not mistaken, its the judges (not Charlie P. or Paul G. or any of the AOB staff) who decide that no "Gold" (hypothetically) gets awarded in "Brown Ales" this year. Bottom line - let us judges judge. Cheers, -John Doherty Lakeville, MA > From: Norman Dickenson Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:14:35 -0800 > Subject: Judging Responsibilities > > I have to disagree. It isn't and never has been the > judges perogative whether or not ribbons are awarded at a competition. > Neither can they disqualify a beer. They may, of course, offer > recommendations, but it seems to me that the award of prizes is strictly the > purview of the competition organizer. The judges' role is simply to judge > the beer and assign a score, or comparatively rank beers in the case of BOS > or mini BOS. > > Norman Dickenson >>> Scott Kaplan posted: >>> >>>The judges have the right to award or not award that beer any specific >>>ribbon they choose, and not award the rest of the ribbons. >>> >>>This is of course up to the judging panel too. Judges always have the >>>discretion to award or not award ribbons. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from staff3.cso.uiuc.edu ([128.174.5.54]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5401434B83 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:10:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (plutchak`at`localhost [127.0.0.1]) by staff3.cso.uiuc.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g1LEAXR13782 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:10:34 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:10:33 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Plutchak Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-X-Sender: To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Judges' responsibilities Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Scott Kaplan wrote: > Norman Dickerson posted in reply to my comment about judge's right > to not award ribbons. [...] My turn to disagree with Mr. Dickerson. > Let's say that a panel has judged their beers and none score above the > mid-twenties (trust me, it's happened). Does anyone honestly believe > that the top three beers in this scoring range deserve ribbons? That's irrelevant. Competition staff awards ribbons. The job of the judge, unless otherwise dictated by the staff, is simply to judge the beer and award a score (and usually ranking). What happens after that is strictly up to competition staff. > As to disqualification, if an entry does not conform to the entry rules > (like plain bottles with no labels), the judge should evaluate the beer > anyway, but disqualify it from ribbons because the entrant violated the > stated rules. Again, this is something done by the competition staff. Judges shouldn't be disqualifying entries. At most they should point out potential problems with an entry to the competition staff, who will take whatever action they deem appropriate. For example, when we run our competition we don't get uptight about rules-- if at all possible we'll see that entries get judged fairly. If somebody uses a bottle with raised lettering, we expect the judges to score it like any other beer, and would not be happy with a judge who took it upon herself to disqualify it. On the flipside, when I judge I expect the competition staff to address any concerns that come from the judging table. Joel Plutchak Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mta01.fuse.net ([216.68.2.90]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5402434C10 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:29:50 -0500 Received: from fuse.net ([216.196.128.189]) by mta01.fuse.net (InterMail vM.5.01.03.01 201-253-122-118-101-20010319) with ESMTP id <20020221152949.BWNW20041.mta01.fuse.net`at`fuse.net> for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:29:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3C75126D.90425BC6`at`fuse.net> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:29:52 -0500 From: David Harsh Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Not giving ribbons / Specifying the underlying style References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Great Scott Kaplan wrote: > Let's look at this from a pure scholastic grading system. > 90-100% is an A, 80-89% is a B, 70-79% a C, and so forth. I guess you never saw the distributions on any of my exams ;) I agree that there should probably be some cutoff below which ribbons are not given. However, the academic comparison suggests that the average score received is in that C range, namely a 37.5. I've never judged in a competition where the average score was that high. Should the score just have to be "above average"? For the category or for the competition? What if the three pickiest judges are judging a flight - do no ribbons go out compared to the table where the average (for no particular reason) is 5 points higher? Remember, I agree with the premise of not awarding ribbons below a certain point, but I am really skeptical of academic approaches to determining cutoff points. Personally, I like 25 as a cutoff for the typical competition. It isn't like we're handing out Nobel prizes. ------------- I was reading the style guidelines after the recent "specifying underlying style" discussion and noticed something - the guidelines state that the brewer should specify the base style. It then goes on to say: "If the base beer is a classic style, the original style should come through in aroma and flavor." My question is, if the base beer is specified and ISN'T a classic style, what kind of style is it? In that case, what is expected of the aroma and flavor? It could actually be argued that "chipotle ale" is a style, just a non-classic style. Is there some meaning in the guidelines that I'm missing? Dave Harsh dharsh`at`fuse.net Cincinnati, OH Bloatarian Brewing League --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from libaxp.sonoma.edu ([130.157.2.3]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5403434D21 for Judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:55:04 -0500 Received: from conversion.sonoma.edu by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) id <01KEJ3F1KMO093BKTT`at`SONOMA.EDU> for Judge at synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:53:59 PST Received: from ndickenson ([130.157.152.111]) by SONOMA.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #39389) with SMTP id <01KEJ3EP0AIM94EOPK`at`SONOMA.EDU> for Judge at synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:53:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:54:16 -0800 From: Norman Dickenson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Judges' Responsibilities To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-id: <00c601c1baf8$65ba52d0$6f989d82`at`sonoma.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message > From: Great Scott! Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:40:22 -0500 > Subject: Judges' responsibilities > > > Norman Dickerson posted in reply to my comment about judge's right to not > award ribbons. > > > > >I have to disagree. It isn't and never has been the > >judges perogative whether or not ribbons are awarded at a competition. > >Neither can they disqualify a beer. They may, of course, offer > >recommendations, but it seems to me that the award of prizes is strictly the > >purview of the competition organizer. The judges' role is simply to judge > >the beer and assign a score, or comparatively rank beers in the case of BOS > >or mini BOS. > > My turn to disagree with Mr. Dickerson. Let's look at this from a somewhat > objective view on a somewhat subjective experience. > > Let's say that a panel has judged their beers and none score above the > mid-twenties (trust me, it's happened). Does anyone honestly believe that > the top three beers in this scoring range deserve ribbons? These scores are > rated simply as "Good," while "Very Good," "Excellent" and "Outstanding" > are above them. I would go so far (not saying that I *have* gone so far) as > to not award a first place ribbon at all, and take the top two scores and > make them second and third place (depending on score). > > Let's look at this from a pure scholastic grading system. 90-100% is an A, > 80-89% is a B, 70-79% a C, and so forth. Every teacher and professor I've > ever had subscribed to this convention. Scoring a beer in the mid or even > upper 20's out of a 50 point scale means it scores in the high 40% area. > Clearly a failing grade. Even if we stretch things a bit because very few > beers if any at all score in the 40s (on the 50 scale), reserving first > place ribbons for those beers that score 30 or higher seems to me the right > thing to do. > > As to disqualification, if an entry does not conform to the entry rules > (like plain bottles with no labels), the judge should evaluate the beer > anyway, but disqualify it from ribbons because the entrant violated the > stated rules. > > Scott Kaplan > I am in total agreement with Scott's argument that poorly scoring beers do not deserve to win a ribbon. I disagree that judges are empowered to make that decision or the decision to disqualify a beer. Judges are guests of a competition and invited to judge beers, not run the competition. If a judge identifies a rules infraction, it is his/her duty to bring it to the attention of the Organizer. Nothing more. If minimum qualifying scores are required to win a ribbon/prize, that should be identified up front in the competition rules, which are developed by the Organizer. It simply is not a fair practice to create new rules after entries are submitted. That's a guaranteed way to piss people off. Norman Dickenson --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.76]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5410434FCE for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:22:25 -0500 Received: from smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1LNMKf11517 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1LNMJ211508 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g1LNMIv10660 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:19 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020221172230.00f537ac`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:22:30 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: RE: Judge Responsibilities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I'm sorry in advance for the lengthy post that follows, but I feel compelled to make a few comments. Having been a competition organizer for the past five years, as well as a judge coordinator most recently, I have to add my .02 in response to several things that Scott Kaplan brings up in his post regarding judge responsibilities. His comments were made in regard to some things Norman Dickerson wrote about the awarding of prizes, etc.: Scott, as an academician, I think your comparison of beer competitions (homebrew in particular) to academic grading systems is a bit of a stretch. Even if one were to merely compare these scales at a basic measurement theory and test construction level, some real differences occur. On the beer scale, although the BJCP does not have an "average" or "median" score or range, I am making an assumption that most judges would agree that a beer that scores a 25 (or in that general range) is more or less in that range of being called "average" or maybe even "mediocre". This may not be a correct assumption, but based on the scores of beers in our competitions over the past years, this would probably be true statistically. If you were to convert this score to a 100 point scale, similar to a grading scale used by teachers (to go with your analogy), an average beer score of 25 would equate to an average grade of 50. Now, last time I checked, a 50 is considered a failure on a grading scale. In actuality, in most grading systems that I am familiar with, anything below a 70 is considered a failure. Again, to go with your grading analogy, a beer scoring a 35 (a score of 70 converted to a 50 point scale) would be a failure! I don't know about you, but anytime I give a beer a score of 35, I'm pretty excited about it, and it typically means that this beer is very drinkable and does a very good job of matching the style. As a brewer, I'm always excited about one of my entries if it scores a 35 and certainly don't consider it a "failure". I also don't think a beer scoring a 19 on the current scale is a "failure". However, when a beer is considered "problematic," and scores a 13 or below, then I think that beverage may be considered a failure in representing that particular style. More importantly, though, in the bigger scheme of things, the purposes of grading student performance are very different than those reasons for evaluating and scoring beer in a competition. The way I see it, the reasons to give grades in school are to provide teachers, students, and significant others a means of monitoring student achievement towards mastery of the performance of some predetermined objective(s). Judging beer, on the other hand, involves giving feedback to a brewer about the various characteristics of that beer, assigning a score to that feedback, and rewarding excellence in their efforts by giving recognition to entries that score better than others. I think we might be better off making a comparison between beer judging and awarding prizes/ribbons to some of the judging and awarding of medals in the Olympics out in Salt Lake City. Let's use the analogy of the judging going on with the figure skating event, or any of the snowboarding events. There, the judges have some pre-determined criteria and scales that they go by in determining a final "score" for any given performance. Let's say that instead of all of the performers getting high marks of 6 for their elements in the long program, everyone turns in a mediocre performance that year and they all score 3's instead. Do you think the Olympic Committee would allow the judges to say, "Well, none of these skaters came close to what Michelle Kwan did last time with those 5.9's and 6's, so we're not going to award a gold medal this year." I don't think so. Regardless of the relative levels of performance from one time to the next, they still award a gold, silver, and bronze medal for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. I think the same goes for a homebrewing competition, where regardless of score, we should still give awards for all of the places. I realize some may say that you run the risk of rewarding mediocrity, but the idea is that we are awarding prizes for best, next best, and so-on. Most ribbons say 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, not 1st -- as long as it is great -- place. So, unless you say something in advance that your competition is only going to reward excellence, and you give a value to that level (e.g., only beers scoring higher than 30 can earn a 1st place), then I don't think judges have the right or even priveledge of making that kind of decision. Those decisions should be made up front by the competition organizers and made public prior to an event in the rules and regulations, and not made after the fact as the event progresses. Sorry for taking up so much space here, but I felt like these things needed to be addressed. Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN Research Assistant Professor Dept. of Special Education Vanderbilt University --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5410435024 for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:26:46 -0500 Received: from slack.org (slack.org [199.125.107.152]) by mercury.mv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/mem-20020217) with ESMTP id SAA28848 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:26:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C758231.EA788701`at`slack.org> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:26:41 -0500 From: Bill Slack Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD EBM-Compaq (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Continuing Education Committee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The Board of Directors of the Beer Judge Certification Program has established a Continuing Education Committee charged with developing a Continuing Education Program which is in keeping with the mission of the BJCP. Norman Dickenson and Bruce Brode have been appointed as co-chairs of the committee. The results of the work of this committee will be presented to the Board of Directors for review and consideration. The co-chairs are looking for several volunteers from the membership of the BJCP who are interested in serving on this committee. Those interested should send a short resume and a statement of interest to Norman Dickenson west_rep`at`bjcp.org Newer members are especially encouraged to participate. Bill Slack President and Representative for the Northeast Region Board of Directors Beer Judge Certification Program, Inc. --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.47]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC541043503B for judge`at`synchro.com; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:34:48 -0500 Received: from LORIDESK ([12.82.131.225]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020221233443.JILZ11926.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net`at`LORIDESK> for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:34:43 +0000 From: "Lori Brown" 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: Seattle are Homebrew Competition Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:34:25 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c1bb30$4c3c0230$6501a8c0`at`LORIDESK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message The 6th Annual St. Patrick's Cascadia Cup Homebrew Competition will be held March 9th at Hales Ales in Seattle, Washington. All styles of beer, mead and cider will be judged according to the current BJCP guidelines. Judges and steward are encouraged to sign up online at www.cascadebrewersguild.org Anyone wishing to enter their homebrewed beverages can also sign up online at www.cascadebrewersguild.org The entry fee is $6 per entry. Enter as many times as you would like, but please limit your entries to one per subcategory. Prizes this year include $100 gift certificate for the best of show entry, along with gift certificates of $30, $20, $10 (first, second, and third place) in each flight. See website for Western Washington homebrew shops that are accepting entries. Gift certificate awards are redeemable at these shops either in person or for mail orders. Entries are due from now until March 3rd. For more information check out the website or contact Lori Brown, 2002 Competition Organizer, at loribrown`at`worldnet.att.net 425-771-7602 Good luck! --Message_Part_SYNC54174352BB-- --Next_Part_SYNC54174352BB--