From JudgeNet Sat May 1 02:08:25 1993 From: reeves at lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves) Subject: When are the First Round Nationals in Boulder? A while ago I asked when the first round nationals were going to be held in Boulder. There was a flurry of answers from other parts of the country but none from Boulder. Do you guys know yet? Jim Homer are you out there? I'm interested even in preliminary scheduling. I know I skipped it last year because all the sessions were scheduled for weekday nights with Saturday and Sunday judging if they didn't get it all done before then. I'm sure that's great for locals but not so great if you're planning on driving up from New Mexico. So does anyone know the scoop? Respond by private e-mail if you don't want to broadcast rumors over the whole digest. Thanks Geoff +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Geoff Reeves: Space Science Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory | | reeves at lanl.gov (internet) or essdp2::reeves (span) | | Phone (505) 665-3877 | | Fax (505) 665-4414 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | A brewery is like a toothbrush. Everyone should have their own. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat May 1 02:08:25 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Feedback to judges >I had a style mis-interpretation in a recent competition. I submitted a >Trappist Dubbel about which one judge commented: > > " -- lactic acid characteristics of style are missing." > >and then in the Drikability and Overall Impression section: > > "review style characteristics & revise recipe" Al, what exactly was the style you entered in?? Few competitions I know of have Belgian Ale styles, let alone A Dubbel style. Most of them have Odd Ales, or some other catch all style which assumes that the Judge gets provided the correct substyle info. Unfortunately stewards and organizers make mistakes. Heck I've had great Pale Ales given to me in German Style Wheat Beer categories, and I've known Cont Lights & Cont. Darks to accidentally get swapped. Sometimes a judge who is not timid will insist the steward double check, but not all judges have that presence of mind unfortunately. Before you criticize the judge you should also try to glean a little insight from someone who was there about how well organized things were. Even in the best organized competitions mistakes can get made, but some competitions do get swamped or the organizers are poorly prepared and chaos ensues. Sorry you had a bad experience. Out this way many of us hld the competition==crapshoot attitude due to past problems. I've been talking with Pat Baker of Crosby & Baker and HWBTA fame. We are planning on trying an experiment with a 2 tier regional competition system sometime next year. We hope this will keep competition sizes more manageable and help bring more opportunities for good learning experiences to the various active homebrew areas around here. JaH PS Part of our judge signup system for the First Round AHA National is an explicit query on what categories the judge is QUALIFIED to do... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat May 1 02:08:25 1993 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: NHC Western Region Round 1 judging AHA National Homebrew Competition Western Region 1st Round [ The length of this posting is intended to inform folks in the region of significant changes for our site over past years. I know a number of people who have refused to participate when a number of problems started to appear over the last couple of years. We have tried to address these by changing the way the competition is organized and run.] The first round of the AHA NHC for the western region will be held Saturday, June 5 and Sunday, June 6 at the Wynkoop Pub and Brewery in downtown Denver, Colorado. Judging sessions will run approximately 9:30am-12:00pm and 1:30pm-4:30pm each day. We will also have space available at the pub Saturday evening for socializing and potential extracurricular activities still in the planning stages. We expect some 800 entries to arrive and will need many judges and stewards to complete the judging on schedule. Participation of every available judge is essential to the continuing success of this competition. Some significant changes will be implemented this year over previous first round sessions held in Boulder. Organizers from each of the four major regional sites have been working together to ensure uniform procedures are used everywhere. The first major change for us is registration for judges. We plan to schedule sessions in advance so judges will know their responsibilities for attending a specific session to judge a specific style. In the past, one could simply show up at any session, gather in groups of two to four judges, pick out a flight of beers, and have at it. While this offered great flexibility, it also presented the organizers with great anxiety in guessing how many sessions would be required and how many judges would show up -- and if the judging would actually be completed in time. Large competitions such as the Blue Bonnet, the GABF Professional Panel Blind Tasting, and several prior NHC 1st and 2nd rounds at other sites have all used this format successfully. In order for it to work, judges will need to contact the organizers with their availability and preference for judging specific styles (see below). BJCP judges and registered clubs and retail suppliers will receive detailed information mailed on April 30. All experienced judges including BJCP registered judges, professional brewers, industry consultants, and any other individual with experience at large regional or national competitions is encouraged to judge. Beginning judges who have experience at one or two local competitions are also encouraged to participate as apprentice judges, and will be placed on a panel with more experienced judges. Anyone else wishing to participate is welcome to help with stewarding duties. A steward is responsible for maintaining order at the table by assisting judges with supplies, etc. and has the opportunity to observe the judging process and even sample some of the beers, but leaves the evaluation of the entries to the judges. One of the best ways to start learning about judging is to work as a steward and watch what goes on without having the responsibility of evaluating the entries. The second major change this year will be the method for selecting entries qualifying for the final round. In the past, we have tried to go by numeric scores alone. The first round held in Chicago in 1992 used a two-tier approach: all flights of a particular style are judged simultaneously and a few of the best entries are collected by a leading judge. These contenders are gathered quickly and passed to a second panel of judges including one judge from each of the first groups. These judges decide which entries will advance to round 2. This two-tier system overcomes problems with skewed or inaccurate scoring by any panel of judges, and comes much closer to accurately determining the best beers from categories with large numbers of entries. Judges and stewards may register by e-mail to: Please use a subject of "NHC". Include your name and phone number(s), a postal address if you are NOT on the BJCP or club mailing list, and indicate at least three or four beer styles you feel best qualified to judge. Once we know the judging schedule, you will be contacted by phone and/or e-mail to confirm the styles and sessions you will work. If e-mail does not go through, call me at (303) 491-0630 [day] or 482-1403 [evening]; you can leave a message with the above information at either number if I'm not in. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 4 02:00:24 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Re: Misjudging Jay writes: >>I had a style mis-interpretation in a recent competition. I submitted a >>Trappist Dubbel about which one judge commented: >> >> " -- lactic acid characteristics of style are missing." >> >>and then in the Drikability and Overall Impression section: >> >> "review style characteristics & revise recipe" > > >Al, what exactly was the style you entered in?? >Few competitions I know of have Belgian Ale styles, let alone >A Dubbel style. Most of them have Odd Ales, or some other >catch all style which assumes that the Judge gets provided the >correct substyle info. Unfortunately stewards and organizers >make mistakes. No, I'm afraid this wasn't the case. The competition was quite large, had some strange breakups of categories (like splitting up Pale Ales by body?!?) but did have a Belgian Ale category which contained a Trappist Ale subcategory. I entered it as a "Trappist (Dubbel)" in the Belgian Ale category. My judging forms' subcategories said "Trappist Ale." Anyone agreeing to judge Belgian Ales should know that a winey, medium brown beer, entered as a Trappist Ale, is most likely meant to be a Dubbel. If the judge doesn't know this, then they should decline judging Belgian Ales -- that was my whole point. By the way, the only Trappist Ale with a significant lactic sourness (albeit a faint one) is Orval. Surely this one beer (which is a "house" or "single" beer and is pale orange in color) is not enough to make "lactic characteristics" required for all Trappist Ales, is it? No, I'm afraid this National judge got cocky, felt she was qualified to judge Belgian Ales, but was, in fact, not familiar enough with them and attributed the Lambik lactic character to all Belgian Ales -- a common mistake made by people new to Belgian Ales. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 5 02:02:34 1993 From: Jim Busch Subject: INre: Belgium judging Al writes justifiably about difficulties in judging Belgium Ales. I feel that I am at least qualified to judge these beers, since I have been to Belgium and drank everything I could find there and here. I have also been fortunate enough to drink many fine Belgium ales personnaly carried over or directly imported by the Brickseller. This has to be one of the hardest styles to judge. Even in Belgium, the diversity is overwhelming. What judges need to remember about Belgium beers, is that just about anything goes. Keep an open mind and palate, within reason. Al writes: Nose: Faint Willamette and Hall hop. Slight ester and malt. > >Flavor: caramel, Hall and Willamette hop > >Finish: smooth, not overly bitter, complex > >Drinkability: Very. > >It was too gassy to be a pale ale, too much caramel to be a lager. > >The Hall hop made it hard to call it a traditional ale. > >Yet it is too "clean" to be an ale. Well, it's been quite a while since I've tasted it (I've been boycotting BBC, you see). From what I recall, it had quite an assertive hop nose for a non-pilsner lager. The nose is all Hallertauer, no Willamette. (Koch says it's Hallertauer Mittelfruch, but I'm skeptical... I've read that all the Mittelfruch was decimated by disease a few years ago.) It is a tad estery and there is definate malt in the nose. I agree that the flavor was caramely, but I don't recally any Willamette flavor. Balance is good -- plenty of residual sweetness to counter the assertive hop bitterness. Clean, abrupt finish. Regarding classification, I would say that this beer, along with Baderbrau, belong in a separate category, which I have proposed calling "American Robust Lager." Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri May 7 02:05:18 1993 From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Recommended reading: Smell and Taste article I recommend for your enlightenment an excellent article on smell and taste: "In the Realm of the Chemical", page 69, Discover magazine, June 1993 issue (on newsstands now). This article goes into great detail about how smell and taste actually happen, and why it works differently in different people. ("He's a good beer judge, knows his styles and all, but he just cannot detect DMS.") -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 12 01:56:04 1993 From: gdt at garlic.LCS.MIT.EDU (Greg Troxel) Subject: Boston Brew-Off Sanctioned Competition status?? The "Boston Brew-Off", according to an announcement I received a while ago, is an AHA sanctioned competition, according to the organizer. Two things seemed different about it, and I thought I would ask if anyone has more information or opinions: 1) The competition rules state that "only customers of BM&V [Barleymalt and Vine, a local homebrew shop] can enter". This seems inconsistent with a competition being sanctioned. (In past years this competition has been open to all.) Are there any rules about competition eligibility that must be met before an event can be sanctioned? It would seem that "Entrants must live in New England" is viewed as reasonable. Is being a customer of a particular store reasonable? 2) In addition to "normal" judging with rating forms, there is to be a critique/feedback session available to entrants, where the judge evaluates the beer in front of the brewer and critiques it/explains styles as appropriate. This sounds like what goes on at homebrew club meetings, and seems like a good idea. It did sound like the judges doing this would be receiving experience points, and this seems unusual, although not necessarily unreasonable. Any comments from anyone who was there for some of these sessions, or comments on the live-feedback scheme? Greg Troxel (Boston Wort Processor, BFD, Recognized judge) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 19 02:41:17 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: AHA Sanctioning Is it within the rules for a competition that has been Sanctioned by the AHA to restrict entries from only a region? I've recently heard that an AHA competition that last year would have been a complete flop without the help of the six Chicagoland BJCP judges, will again be restricted (Illinois entries are not eligible for awards). Is this legal for an AHA Sanctioned competition? Even if it is, I feel it's pretty rude of the organizers, especially given all the help that the Chicagoland judges gave them. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 20 02:32:19 1993 From: "Daniel F McConnell" Subject: Re: AHA Sanctioning Al writes: >Is it within the rules for a competition that has been Sanctioned by >the AHA to restrict entries from only a region? Hot topic! Last year we held the Michigan State Fair Competition and I asked the same question because we (the organizers ) agreed that only MICHIGAN residents should win the MICHIGAN State Fair. The AHA indicated that such restrictions were acceptable, therefore we tried to make it VERY clear that, although we would accept entries from other states (to provide beer critique) these entries were not eligible for prizes. I believe that California has been doing this for some time ( warning....unverified data). We used primarily local judges for this event although others were not denied the opportunity to judge. Actually only one out of state judge helped out (Ohio, NOT Illinois...Thanks Pete!). Fortunately we have sufficiently excellent brewers in this state so that we did not have to eliminate any awards. I understand your point, but at least for the state fair competitions, I feel that some restriction is acceptable. There are plenty of other competitions (at least 3 in this state that I am aware of, some that we are not involved in) that have no such restrictions. I am interested in feedback regarding this topic because as August-September rolls around it will be State Fair time again. FWIW we plan to follow the same protocol this year-unless I can be convinced (and sell the other organizers) otherwise. DanMcC -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 20 02:32:19 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Re: AHA Sanctioning Regarding Al's question about sanctioning rules: As far as the BJCP goes I have found no guidelines which define "sanctioned competitions". The by-laws only refer to them as a means for participants earn points in the program. It looks to me like the requirements for sanctioning are left to the two parent organizations (HWBTA/AHA) to define. I'm sure there are suggestions for minimums necessary to sanction which the AHA puts out when the organizer signs up the competition. Enforcement of these suggestions is another matter. In Al's case I expect the most effective action would be to withhold support for the competition in order to make the organizer's aware of the significance of their limit of awards. In short, organize the non resident judges to decline an invitation to participate and be sure to explain the reasons to the competition organizers. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 20 02:32:19 1993 From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: AHA Sanctioning Al Korzonas asks: > > Is it within the rules for a competition that has been Sanctioned by > the AHA to restrict entries from only a region? I've recently heard > that an AHA competition that last year would have been a complete > flop without the help of the six Chicagoland BJCP judges, will again > be restricted (Illinois entries are not eligible for awards). Is this > legal for an AHA Sanctioned competition? Even if it is, I feel it's > pretty rude of the organizers, especially given all the help that the > Chicagoland judges gave them. > The Oregon State Fair has been an AHA sanctioned event from its inception, I believe. Only residents of the state can enter. We've gotten judges from Washington and Idaho, with nary a complaint. Of course, we pay an honorarium and travel expenses... - --Jeff Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 20 02:32:19 1993 From: "James Spence/AHA/Colo." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Competition restrictions >Is it within the rules for a competition that has been Sanctioned by >the AHA to restrict entries from only a region? AHA Sanctioned Competition organizers can restrict a competition to certain entrants if they want. Some shop owners have restricted their competition to their customers only. James -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri May 21 03:21:59 1993 From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Geographically Limited Competitions I believe the competition Al was referring to was last autumn's Minnesota Beer Festival, held at Sherlock's Home brewpub in Minneapolis. While Al was not there, myself and four other Chicagoans (members of CBS and BOSS) traveled by car at our own expense to judge there. Yes, Illinois homebrewers such as Al and myself were not allowed to enter, AND I FOR ONE AM GLAD. This was a special circumstance: The Minnesota group is trying hard to get itself started. They have quite a few homebrewers in the state, some of them quite skilled, but almost no BJCP judges. This was their first competition. When they put out the call for entries, they got over 300 - quite a few. They had also asked specifically for a couple of us in Chicago to come up and show them how this was all done, as they were new at it. When we got there Friday afternoon and found out how few judges we had and how many beers we had, we were not at all sure it could be done. It took a herculean effort just to cope with the logistics of this, especially on the part of Steve Hamburg who spent a lot of time beforehand communicating with the organizers in Minnesota by e-mail, and helping on the spot, with to how to organize - labeling entries, setting up flights, etc. Nevertheless, with only six BJCP or experienced/non-BJCP (professional brewer) judges, it was real work. Each experienced judge was paired with one or two apprentice judges - all of whom were studying for the BJCP exam. This worked OK, both for training the apprentices, and as a practical way of getting all those beers judged. Nevertheless, over a 3-day weekend, each of us judged over 50 beers, in four judging sessions. (Friday night, Saturday morning, Saturday night, and Sunday morning.) We still refer to it as "That Minnesota Marathon". This is why I am glad that no entries were accepted from Illinois - we'd have been there a week! At least they fed us well, and a pint of Sherlock's real British bitter from their genuine beer-engine was a great treat after each session. Nevertheless, we got all 300 beers judged properly, and actually had a couple of hours off Saturday afternoon to visit the James Page and Summit microbreweries in town. The important thing was that we think we successfully trained the new Minnesota club how to run a competition, and now they have a number of their own newly-recognized BJCP judges who have passed the test. Some of them have agreed to return the favor and come down to Chicago to help us with our expected 500+ entries in the AHA 1st Round Regional in June. We are optimistic that when they have this competition again next year, they will have the logistical wherewithal to accept entries from Illinois and anywhere else, and conduct a somewhat less athletic competition. But last year, just expanding it to Illinois would have pushed this competition over the edge from "difficult" to "impossible". -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat May 22 05:54:06 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Minnesota Marathon Yes, indeed, it's the Minnesota competition that I was writing about. I've exchanged some email with Cush Hamlen, who explained that it was the sheer number of entries that was the main factor in restricting the competition to a region. Alas, unless the organizers change their plans, Illinois will not be included again this year (October 2nd & 3rd, tentatively). I'm not quite sure why this was such a big deal to me... I regularly enter the BOSS, CBS, Evanston, Kenosha, KC, St. Louis, and Central Illinois regional competitions, as well as the Nationals, so that's more than enough feedback on my beers and more than enough chances for a couple of ribbons. It just somehow seems uncomfortable to be excluded from something -- an important lesson, actually. I'd like to add that Cush was extremely thankful for the help of the Chicagoland judges and was one of many who rallied to have Illinois included this year -- unfortunately, the decision makers thought otherwise. I'm not one to hold grudges, and there's several positives in judging a competition in which you have no entries: you can judge your favorites (mine are Belgians, Pale Ales and Stouts, which I never get to judge because I've always got entries) and have a better shot at judging BOS. I wish the best of luck to the Minnesota Competition, and hope I can make it to judge there! Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat May 22 05:54:06 1993 From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: Geographically Limited Competitions Roger writes: >Illinois homebrewers such as Al and myself were not allowed to enter, >AND I FOR ONE AM GLAD. I was also there (from Chicago), and Roger put it so well theres not much more for me to add. I had a great time, was glad to assist with setting up flights etc (although I had no idea what was up till I got there). I'd gladly go again. If my first sanctioned competition had that many entries, I would have been in trouble, I didn't have access to the facilities they do. I also had the honor of doing the BOS with Michael Jackson and Steve Hamburg, and I wouldnt have passed that up for a case of bud lite:-) John Isenhour National Beer Judge "Fermentation Halted: coors dumped" -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon May 24 03:16:19 1993 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: NHC round 1 entries arrived in Denver Whew! The unpacking is done in Denver. We have our work cut out for us; there were 840 entries logged. Not counting broken bottles and other problem entries (about 20 in all), the breakdown by category is: 1 Barley Wine 32 2 Belgian 47 3 Brown Ale 32 4 English Pale 56 5 American Pale 58 6 Bitters 36 7 Scottish Ale 11 8 Porter 52 9 Strong Ale 15 10 Stout 56 11 Bock 48 12 Bavarian Dark 19 13 Dortmund/Export 14 14 Munich Helles 14 15 Classic Pils 48 16 American Lager 23 17 Fest/Marzen 39 18 Alt/Kolsch 22 19 Fruit 26 20 Herb 21 21 Specialty 41 22 Smoke 9 23 Cal. Common 27 24 Wheat 31 25 Trad. Mead 12 26 Flavored Mead 29 We advance only the best three from each category regardless of how many were entered. So if you entered in this region, you now know how much competition you'll have in passing round 1. Good luck to all! There is plenty of room for extra judges. Judging will be Saturday and Sunday, June 5-6 at the Wynkoop in Denver. Two sessions each day will begin at 9:30am and 1:30pm. If you want to be involved in judging and have not contacted me, I need to know by May 25. Registration is required for judges and stewards. People who just show up on the judging days will make things more complicated for me, and I'd prefer to avoid the last-minute shuffle. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630(w), 482 1403(h) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat May 29 03:55:13 1993 From: bob at rsi.com (Bob Gorman) Subject: Kinston Numbers Here are the numbers from the North East site (Kingston, NY) for the first round 1993 AHA Nationals. Enjoy... 1a Barley Wine 21 2a Flanders Brown 1 2b Dubbel 9 2c Tripel 8 2d Belgian Ale 5 2e Belgian Strong 12 2f Lambic 3 2g Wit 7 3a English Brown 9 3b English Mild 3 3c American Mild 18 4a Engl Pale Ale 14 4b IPA 22 5a Amer Pale Ale 27 5b Amer Wheat 7 6a Engl Ordinary 5 6b Engl Special 9 6c ESB 14 7a Scottish Light 3 7b Scottish Heavy 4 7c Scottish Exprt 6 8a Robust Porter 32 8b Brown Porter 13 9a English Strong 5 9b Scottish Strng 15 10a Dry Stout 21 10b Foreign Stout 11 10c Sweet Stout 12 10d Imperial Stout 12 11a Trad Bock 11 11b Helles Bock 13 11c Doppel Bock 13 11d Eis Bock 2 12a Munich Dark 17 12b Schwarzbier 2 13a Dortmunder 11 14a Munich Helles 13 15a German Pils 18 15b Bohemian Pils 22 16a Amer Diet/Lite 1 16b Amer Standard 4 16c Amer Premium 12 16d Amer Dry 0 16e Cream Ale 10 16f Amer Dark 3 17a Vienna 9 17b Oktoberfest 22 18a Alt 9 18b Kolsch 11 19a Fruit Beer 21 19b Classic Fruit 11 20a Herb Beer 10 20b Classic Herb 1 21a Specialty Beer 23 21b Classic Spec 19 22a Rauchbier 2 22b Other Smoked 4 23a Calif Common 15 24a Berliner Weise 3 24b Weizen 26 24c Dunkel Weizen 5 24d Weizen Bock 3 25a Sprk Trad Mead 2 25b Stll Trad Mead 7 26a Sprk Othr Mead 15 26b Stll Othr Mead 13 Total 711 - -- Bob Gorman bob at rsi.com Watertown MA US -- - -- Relational Semantics, Inc uunet!semantic!bob +1 617 926 0979 -- --------------------------------------