Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA26020 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA25591 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA05333; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id JAA05286; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02137 for spencer at umich.edu; Fri, 18 Apr 97 09:23:31 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22974 for judge-digest-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:46:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:46:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199704181246.IAA22974 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1424 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Friday, 18 April 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1424 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Re: judging to style: Belgian Strong ale RE: Fairness of awarding judging points multi-session judging New Point Schedule & privac Re: judge-digest V1 #1423 Re: Using Style Guidelines to Judge or Determine Entry Category BJCP exam schedule N.Y.C.H.G./M.B.A.S. COMPETITION RESULTS Can You Read Recipes... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John DeCarlo Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:21:39 -0400 Subject: Re: judging to style: Belgian Strong ale Well, you got me riled up on this one. I have several times had a situation where the "guidelines" for the competition either had misleading or incomplete information. If that is the case for the style you are judging, you need to discuss it with fellow judges and the competition organizer and judge coordinator. No guidelines will ever be perfect, but our job as judges is to do the best job we can in judging stylistic parameters. That is why knowledge of commercial examples and historical information is important--because the guidelines may have problems. In other words, I say we should judge to a more complete and realistic vision of the style than can be captured in the guidelines--if we have the knowledge to let us do so. Someone will no doubt argue that some poor brewer will look at the guidelines and remove any flavors or ingredients that aren't specifically allowed, even if common commercially. And that we shouldn't penalize that brewer. OTOH, I will argue that someone who brews a good example of the style shouldn't be penalized because of problems in the "guidelines". In fact, that brewer probably demonstrates a more complete knowledge of the style than could be gained only by reading the "guidelines". Unfortunately, there is no hard-and-fast rule. Some competitions may want to exclude all beers with OG over 1.035 and formulate their guidelines accordingly. However, most competitions are for well-known styles and we should judge according to a more knowledgeable standard and work out differences before judging. - -- John DeCarlo, Arlington, VA--My views are my own Internet: jdecarlo at juno.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:16:23 -0700 Subject: RE: Fairness of awarding judging points Hi all, I would like to throw in my .02 about the relatively new system for awarding experience points to judges. In my opinion, it is neither fair nor equitable. In the old system, one earned more points for judging at larger events. While I agree that a judge should get at least 1 point regardless of contest size (the effort of showing up is worth a lot to me), I believe that it is only right to award more points to people that are evaluating more beers. For example, at a recent contest, I judged 9 beers. I got 1 point. At a larger contest back in Nov., I judged 18 beers. I got 1 point. What is fair and equitable about that? It is most illogical to conclude that a judge gained the same experience judging 9 beers as they did when judging 18. What is the point of this new system? To ensure that it would take longer to earn promotions? That's just my opinion. If somebody can offer a logical reason for this new system to exist, I'd be glad to hear it. Perhaps the BJCP DOES want it to take longer to earn promotions, reasoning that a judge gains more experience from attending many contests, regardless of size, as opposed to attending fewer, larger contests. If that is the case, it should be stated as such. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: "Bryan L. Gros" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:21:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: multi-session judging : Tom Fitzpatrick wrote: >> From: hollen at vigra.com >> >> Just saw the current BJCP points award schedule for competitions and >> unless I am somehow misinterpreting it, it *discourages* judges from >> participating in multi-day competitions. >> >> > >Dion mentions that the award schedule discourages multi-day >participation. This is true only in his above example, where a comp >has two sessions, one on each day. If the comp had one fri nite >session and two sat sessions, a judge could pick up 1.5 points. >I actually wasn't aware that any comps split a two session judging >into two days. I may be wrong, but I think this situation is rare. I noticed the SE regional round for the NHC has this situation. Actually, they say "Sunday if needed", so maybe three days and several rounds. With Dion's example, and the increasing size of many competitions, this situation will become more common. And with it the need to attract more judges for longer periods of time. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN ------------------------------ From: "Rad Equipment" Date: 16 Apr 1997 16:06:03 -0700 Subject: New Point Schedule & privac Subject: New Point Schedule & privacy Time:12:43 PM Date:4/16/97 Dion says: >Did you realize at all how unfair it is for one judge to get the exact same number of points as another after having judged twice the number of sessions and spent twice the time? It is also not an accurate representation of how much experience the two judges got. One will get the same credit for twice the amount of experience gained.< For most competitions the point awards will be just the same as they were under the old schedule. Under the old system only comps with more than 500 entries could offer multiple points to judges. The new schedule expands that possibility to include comps with as few as 76 entries. However the intent was never to make points any easier to gain. In medium sized events where a small pool of judges participate in multiple sessions, on multiple days, there is the chance that those judges will be able to pick up an additional 1/2 point or so in return for their extra effort. Likewise for larger events (250+), where you could see 3 or 4 sessions conducted over 2 days. As Tom Fitzpatrick points out it is somewhat more equitable than the old schedule. For the average size event which gets everything done in 2 sessions on one day judges will get the same single point that they would have gotten previously. One aspect of the new schedule which does inflate points (which I believe is completely justified) is the 1 point minimum for judges per event. Judges who participate at comps with <75 entries (previously worth only 1/2 point for judges) put in just as much effort as those who participate in 85 or 100 entry events. They should not be penalized just because of the event's size. By the same token, the elimination of artificially inflated points for specific competitions (ie the AHA NHC First Round 3 point rule and getting 2 points for their Final Round or 5 points for their BOS) brings that competition into line with the rest of the events which get scheduled. While this certainly reduces the points that judges will get for their participation in the AHA NHC, I don't think it is wrong to equalize all events. Dion is correct that Experience Points do not accurately reflect experience. They never have and they never will. They are poorly named since they really reflect attendance not experience. Judges do not necessarily learn or improve simply as a result of participating (as BJCP experience points imply). There is no way to evaluate the quality of a judge's experience simply by tracking participation. The only way to really evaluate a judge's performance is by some sort of peer review and that is just too cumbersome a system for the BJCP to adopt. Experience Points are a compromise. They are used in an attempt to correlate the judge's field experience with the exam score to determine rank. It is an imperfect system but it is the most workable one we have come up with to date. On another matter, I am very pleased to see that Byron Burch has joined us in this forum. Unfortunately I must point out that only another beer author would be sensitive to the fact that a poor competition score could compromise one's reputation and deflate future book sales. Finding out that an "expert" was human and capable of making an offensive beer just like the rest of us folks AND own up to it by entering it in a competition would raise his or her reputation for me. Perhaps this "expert" was looking for help in determining the cause of this horrid example. After all, isn't the first purpose of competitions feedback? I find it hard to believe that anybody is all that interested in who does poorly at a homebrew competition. I imagine the entrants are interested in where their beers fell and who won. Releasing the results based on the entry numbers alone is a fine solution. If I remember to change the database I'll do it that way for the next California State Homebrew Competition. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - RussWig at aol.com) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ From: MaltyDog at aol.com Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1423 Bryan L. Gros writes: >This is a basic question of judging. As I understand, ideally a judge will >put aside his or her notions of a style and judge a beer according to >whatever competition guidelines are put in front of them. The AHA will use >the AHA style guidelines, and if the guidelines don't permit spices in >a Belgian strong ale, then a spiced beer must be out of style This is a basic question of judging that I have some qualms about. In order to become a beer judge, we are all given a test to find out about our knowledge of beer styles. Based on how well we do, we are given so many points, which allows us to progress to such-and-such a level of judging, as we gain judging points at various contests. Meanwhile, while we are actually judging the beers at various contests, we are supposed to throw away whatever knowledge we have of whatever style we have, and just follow the style guidelines for the style we're judging, no matter how inadequate they are-and when you come to the AHA's guidelines for Belgian ales, it's pretty inadequate, let me tell you! What's the point of reading about beers, about becoming familiar with styles, if we are supposed to become zombies and just parrot the style sheets? What exactly are we being tested for? If I'm unfamiliar or uninterested with a style that I've been assigned to judge (for instance, the time I was assigned American Light Lagers), I am quite eager to look over the sheets and see what others who have made an effort have to say about the style, and use that to guide me. On the other hand, if I am judging a style I am very familiar with, I have no trouble using my own judgement, even when it doesn't strictly follow the style sheets. I do not find it egotistical to think that I know more about Belgian Strong Ales than the AHA does; most half-educated judges do. It's not prejudice; it's knowledge. If I'm way off base, there's at least one other judge there to knock me off my pedestal. If I can't trust my own judgement, why am I wasting my time at the contest anyway? There's lots of places to taste good beers. Bill Coleman ------------------------------ From: John Sullivan Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:38:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Using Style Guidelines to Judge or Determine Entry Category Bryan wrote: >When entering your beer, you need to look at the style guidelines to >determine in which category to enter it. So a spiced beer shouldn't >be entered in the Belgian strong for the NHC. This is not a new thread. Dion Hollenbeck and I had this same discussion last year. The first sentence of Bryan's response is correct to a point but needs to be qualified. It should read: "When entering your beer, you need to look at the style guidelines AND COMBINE THAT WITH YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE OF STYLES to determine in which category to enter it." Had the style guidelines for Belgian Strong stated that spices ARE NOT ALLOWED, then you would not want to enter in that category. In fact however, it is an unaddressed issue in the style guidelines. Another example is DMS in American Lagers. As knowledgeable judges, we know that moderate amounts of DMS are allowable in American Lagers, yet the AHA Style Guidelines never addressed the issue. I do not know if the current incarnation of those guidelines address this issue. Previously however, these style guidelines never said that low DMS was allowable, so do we assume that it is not allowable just because it wasn't addressed? You can go through any list of guidelines and come up with many examples of unaddressed issues. While it may be very important for guidelines to clearly state what is allowable, it is more important for them to clearly state what is not allowable. In a perfect world, the guidelines would provide both. As a person who has organized a competition before, I would hate to be faced with the possibility of printing and mailing a tome of guidelines that addressed literally every possibility for a style. Alt would be a whole chapter by itself. There are some significant considerations here: 1) If you are a novice and do not understand style guidelines, you will enter strictly according to what is in the guidelines. Perhaps a caveat should be provided with each set of competition rules and guidelines indicating that other allowable yet unstated characteristics may apply. Obviously this would have to be worded better than I just stated it and an example accompanying that caveat would be appropriate. 2) As an experienced entrant, you will enter your beer in the appropriate category based upon the guidelines and your own knowledge. However, what you need to consider here is "What are my chances that the judges will be as knowledgeable about this style as I am?" This is a big consideration. 3) If you are a judge, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to judge a beer according not only to the guidelines but also according to your knowledge of styles. Not only is this a requirement, it is a reality. It happens because all judges do it for the styles that they are familiar with. I don't want someone judging my beers who feels that guidelines are the be all and end all of allowable characteristics. At the St. Louis Brews HHHC last year in my instructions to the judges (along with be nice, be thorough, be constructive, etc. etc.), I also advised them to use their own knowledge and experience to evaluate each beer simply because the guidelines are not and probably never will be perfect and complete. If a judge has nothing from your his knowledge and experience to augment style guidelines, in my opinion he should NOT be judging. I certainly do not want that judge evaluating my beers. John Sullivan St. Louis, MO ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BJCP exam schedule BJCP Exam Schedule as of April 17, 1997 Date Location Contact Person Phone Number - ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/19 Rochester, NY Todd Colin TBCOLIN at KODAK.COM 4/27 Halifax, NS Jeff Pinhey (902) 425-5218 5/3 Orlando, FL Mac Monroe (407) 253-2534 5/10 Birmingham, AL Ginger Wotring (205) 320-2887 5/10 Naperville, IL Tom Fitzpatrick (630) 896-6255 5/10 Lowell, MA Dan Hall (603) 778-1231 5/24 Louisville, KY Dibbs Harting (812) 967-2811 6/7 Denver, CO Mark Groshek (303) 757-8394 6/7 Fresno, CA Jim Lopes (209) 227-7994 6/21 Malvern, PA Chuck Hanning (610)-889-0396 6/22 Regina, Sask. Bev Robertson (306) 359-7276 6/29 St. Louis, MO John Sullivam sullivan at anet-stl.com 7/17 NHC-Cleveland Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 10/97 Bellevue, WA Mark Henry (206) 882-9929 10/97 GABF-Denver Scott Bickham (410) 290-7721 10/11 Brighton, MI Bill Pfeiffer (810) 229-0727 date/location to be determined - contact me if interested - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/97 Minneapolis Jim Ellingson jellings at me.umn.edu 7/97 Phoenix, AZ Rick Drake HARDROCKENGR at msn.com 9/97 Fargo, ND Ray Taylor libertyray at earthlink.net 10/3 Morristown, NJ Julianne Targen 10/97 Syracuse, NY Peter Garofalo (315) 428-0952 10/3 Morristown, NJ Julianne Targen 12/6 Princeton, NJ Bruce Hammell (609) 393-2946 1/98 Raleigh, NC Larry Matthews 1/98 Anchorage AK Shane Docherty (907) 345-4099 TBD Erie, PA Ralph Colaizzi (412) 931-9099 ------------------------------ From: GALATEA27 at aol.com Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: N.Y.C.H.G./M.B.A.S. COMPETITION RESULTS We would like to thank all who participated in the New York City Homebrewer's Guild and Malted Barley Appreciation Society's homebrew competition held on April 12, 1997. This year we had a total of 161 entries - making it by far our best competition. These are the results: First Place Best of Show: Tom Cahalane - Strong Scotch Ale - HOSI/NYCHG Second Place Best of Show: Frank A. Salt - Sparkling Cider - HOSI/NYCHG Third Place Best of Show: Tom Miklinevich - Oatmeal Stout - Underground Brewer's of Connecticut Light Lager/Ale/Wheat: 1st - Al Boccardo - American Light Lager 2nd - Ron Barnes - Dunkelweizen Bock 3rd - Paul Sullivan - German Pils British Scottish Ale/IPA: 1st - Tom Cahalane - American IPA 2nd - Jim Simpson - American IPA 3rd - Tom Miklinevich - Bitter Altbier/Porter: 1st - Kevin Winn - Robust Porter 2nd - George De Piro - No. German Alt 3rd - Kevin Winn - Dusseldorfer Brown Ale: 1st - Tom Cahalane - American Brown 2nd - Bob Brotschol - American Brown 3rd - Ken Johnsen - Northern Brown Strong Ales: 1st - Tom Cahalane - Strong Scotch Ale 2nd - Frank A. Salt - Barleywine 3rd - Terry Kolb - Russian Imperial Stout Fruit/Cider/Mead: 1st - Frank A. Salt - Sparkling Cider 2nd - Ed Shaughnessy - Raspberry Cider 3rd - Bob Brotschol - Raspberry Ale Pale Ales: 1st - Tom Cahalane - American Pale Ale 2nd - Steve Casperi - American Pale Ale 3rd - Jim Simpson - American Pale Ale Stout: 1st - Tom Miklinevich - Oatmeal Stout 2nd - Ron Barnes - Oatmeal Stout 3rd - Kevin Winn - Foreign Extra German Amber Lager/European Dark: 1st - Frank A. Salt - Schwartzbier 2nd - Phil Bernie - Vienna Lager 3rd - George De Piro - Vienna Lager Bock: 1st - Jim Simpson - Maibock 2nd - T & M Szamatalski - Doublebock 3rd - Jim Simpson - Maibock Strong Belgium/French: 1st - Jim Simpson - Strong Dark Ale 2nd - Bill Coleman - Abbey Dubbel 3rd - Jim Link - Abbey Trippel Other Belgium: 1st - Warren Becker - Abbey House 2nd - Paul Sullivan - Saison 3rd - Bill Coleman - Lambic Gueze Spice/Smoked: 1st - Ron Barnes - Smoked Alt 2nd - Christopher Baas - Honey Cammomile Ale 3rd - Ron Barnes - Ginger Root Ale Donna Bersani & Joanne Sagala Competition Coordinators & Co-Vice Presidents New York City Homebrewer's Guild ------------------------------ From: JCalen at aol.com Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Can You Read Recipes... ... the way a musician reads music? That is, can you taste a recipe in your head without brewing the beer? There's a lot of story behind my query, in 3 to 5 weeks I can get into the details. Suffice it to say that in a group of seven judges, six felt that a particular beer was representative of a style while I felt strongly that it missed the mark and better fit another style. I tracked down the brewer, got the recipe and said, "Aha! This should convince anybody that I was right." No sale. So, I now turn to the collective wisdom here, hopefully to build a stronger case, and ask what kind of beer you think this recipe should yield. It is a dark ale. If you were going to brew a partial mash dark ale this weekend you might consider giving this recipe a try. I felt the beer was excellent -- but in what style? 4 lbs Laaglander Light Dry Malt 1 lb Munton & Fison Wheat Dry Malt 2 lbs English Pale Ale Malt 0.5 lb Dark Crystal Malt 0.5 lb Mild Ale Malt 0.5 lb Chocolate Malt 7 oz Black Patent Malt 1 oz Roasted Barley 0.33 cup Molasses 0.33 cup Brown Sugar 4 gm Brew Salts 1 tspn Gypsum 1 tspn Irish Moss 1 oz Eroica Pellets-13 A for boil 60 minutes 1 oz Fuggles Pellets aroma 2 minutes single step infusion mash at 158 degrees OG 1.059 FG 1.015 Wyeast 1056 Primary 7 days at 70 degrees Secondary 12 days at 65 degrees Regards, John Calen ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1424 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.