That would apply in this case but wouldn't switching to a 1/2 point scoring system alleviate some of these tie and "close call" issues as well?
I'll answer the question with another question: Would changing from a 10 point scale (0-9) to a 20 point scale (0-19) prevent this? My answer is mathematically no, and the reason why I asked it is that it's the same thing put into different words. BBQ scoring is a discrete system that doesn't have a normal distribution of values, so in the end you have a finite number of scores. Whether those scores involve fractions, whole numbers, or are assigned by Greek letters, it doesn't really matter. All you really need to do is rank those scores in order from 1 to whenever and decide which ones beat which ones. Increasing the the quantity of discrete scores gives you the flexibillity to have more granular results, but only if you specifically choose to. It all depends on the ranks you give the combinations and how you want to enforce it algorithmically.
There is the psycological effect though, and I don't account for it. If scoring stays in the 6-9 range currently, half scores could keep it in that same range and still have the same granularity, but again, mathematically it makes no difference as far as I am concerned.
Sorry to be such a geek about it, but this is what I do, or at least part of it.
dmp
EDIT: Increasing the number of discrete values would actually have the opposite effect. The distribution of scores becomes closer so scores look closer than they are. You also increase the odds of having tie scores, or require that weightings be carried out to more decimal places to avoid ties. If you want to avoid ties and "close scores" you should reduce the number of scores available. In the end, keep in mind that whatever the mathematics show on paper, your score sheet currently has 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible values on it per category. Your goal is to get the best combination regardless of how close it is to the next highest.