Return-Path: judge-owner at synchro.com Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA12947 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA29530 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/10/98 - 8/11/98 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:04:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ calibration (Robert Paolino) Re: Judges and bottles/calibration... (John DeCarlo) Re: Calibration Beers & Bottle Inspections (John or Barb Sullivan) Cal Beers (Russ Wigglesworth) Re: calibration (fwd) (Some Guy) -------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Paolino Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:39:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: calibration I'm a little sceptical about the idea of trying to do the calibration round with a "classic example" of every style for every judge panel. 1. Using the "classic example" (preferably plural) is great for training judges--and anyone else interested in beer appreciation, but the morning of the competition is a little late for training. (Not that you can't have "apprentice" judges matched up with a couple of experienced ones... but the calibration beer is not going to train them.) 2. Does using a "classic example" mean that (provided it is fresh) the calibration beer is the "50" and anything that differs from it is inferior? Most of us would agree that SNPA is _a_ "classic" American Pale Ale, but does that mean that an entry that's more aggressively hopped or uses Columbus instead of Cascade is less deserving of a high score because it does not taste like SNPA?? The objective of the competition is not to make clones (although I have seen a competition that had a "closest to Saranac Pale Ale" category). 3. I look upon the calibration as a "warm-up" exercise for judging, regardless of the style used. I'd hope that the calibration beer wouldn't be a palate-killer, like a barleywine or lambic, before judging Munich Helles, but I think judging an English bitter or even an American Lager serves the purpose just fine, even if I'm going to be judging stouts. It gets people into the frame of mind for judging before getting an actual entrant's beer. 4. The other purpose of a "calibration" round is what the word literally means, to "calibrate" scoring to some "true" score on the scale, and to advise judges that they may be scoring too low or too high. You can't average 30 scores on 10 different beers and have it mean the same as 30 scores on the same beer, unless you assume that each "classic example" should get the same score as all the others, and an average of three judges' scores on the same beer isn't very useful in advising judges that they might be scoring higher/lower. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer. Can you? Bland Beer is the Worst Sort of Tyranny! Don't drink bland industrial swill; it only encourages them to make more. Great Taste of the Midwest tickets now on sale! -------------------------------------------------------- From: John DeCarlo Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:58:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Judges and bottles/calibration... Some Guy (supposedly Pat Babcock) wrote: >Subject: Judges and bottles/calibration... >I disagree. It's not a separation, but another commonality. When I >distribute the fruits of my brewing, I don't go to the extremes of >purchasing custom-made bottles but I sure as hell make sure the bottle is >(a) not scratched to hell (b) "attractively" filled and, most >importantly, (c) CLEAN. Presentation. To convince those who have never >tried a home brewed beer to do so, it must first appeal to them. Just >like with the commercial beers [...] >Also, I think to not pay attention to the bottle at all would be to do a >disservice to the entrant. The care taken in packaging is as important as >the care taken in mashing. And the bottle is an intimate component of the >packaging process. Hmmm. Interesting points. I agree with Pat about presenting homebrew to friends, acquaintances, relatives, fellow party-goers. I try and bring the best looking bottles I have, and bring them back home. But for competitions where I know I will never see the bottle again, I have generally used the ugliest bottles. The insides are the same, in any case. Perhaps my assumptions that judges could handle ugly bottles has hurt my beer's score in the past. I think judges should keep in mind that the brewers aren't getting these bottles back and have an incentive not to send their most beautiful bottles. John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own email: jdecarlo at mitre.org voice: 703-883-7116 fax: 703-883-3383 -------------------------------------------------------- From: John or Barb Sullivan Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 06:27:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Calibration Beers & Bottle Inspections I believe that calibration beers have limited value. The first beer you judge in your flight will do more to calibrate your judging than a common example given to all judges to kick things off. Sometimes, depending upon the relative experience of your judge partners, it can take up to 3 or 4 beers before that judging table is "calibrated". Perhaps in a perfect world this should not be, but in most cases it is in fact a reality of judging. So my take is to dispense with the time wasting calibration beer and get down to business. Even if you do a calibration beer, how often do the judges at the table seriously consider the impact of their scoring? Furthermore, if they noted a wide discrepancy what would they/could they do about it in the few short minutes before the first beer comes out? "Hey you're scoring to high!" "No, I'm not." "Yes you are!" "OK, maybe I can score a little lower. How about you though, can you score a little higher then?" This fine tuning process cannot easily be accomplished with a calibration beer. Perhaps if the proper amount of time and instruction were put into calibration beers, I could see more value. To judge you should be prepared (both physically and from an educational standpoint) to begin judging without a calibration beer. Bottle inspections are not all that important. To ease the minds of the contestants, perhaps the statement "Not for Scoring Purposes" should be permanently placed on the scoresheet. As far as having the steward just bring the beers out in a glass, I am against that notion. Stewards have enough to do without having to pour each beer and then bring them out to the judges. Most importantly, having the bottle available to the judges allows everyone at the table to reconfirm the entry number. It also allows judges to disqualify a beer that violates the competition rules on anonymity. Bring me the bottle. It allows me to verify much (turbidity before the pour, gushing, etc.) even though I don't actually need it for scoring. John Sullivan St. Louis, MO -------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Wigglesworth Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:22:12 -0700 Subject: Cal Beers At the California State Homebrew Competition I have provided calibration beers which match the style of the flights for the past 5 or so years. It is not difficult but it does require a little effort. I do not supply these beers as "standards" against which the flight will be evaluated. In fact the judges are told that the purpose of the calibration beer is to get them to discuss the style prior to judging actual entries and to give them a throw away beer with which they can get the" feel" of the panel. A warm-up. Some cal beers may be the best beers in the flight, others not. Generally in categories where there has been some advanced preliminary judging I use one of the passed over entries for the cal beer. I am careful to review the preliminary score sheets in order to avoid infections, out of style, or grossly flawed entries. In other categories I get commercial beers or I use homebrew from my stock or that of friends. If I use commercial beers I always render them unidentifyable by changing their container. Sometimes I will add a bit of hop oil to further hide their identity. The cal beer is always of the least assertive sub-style of a category (no Imperial Stouts). For oddball categories (specialty, spice, fruit, herb, etc.) the cal beer style isn't very important so long as it isn't going to ruin the panel's palates. I generally use a light ale for these. RW... Russ Wigglesworth UCSF-Stanford Health Care Department of Radiology 415-476-3668 -------------------------------------------------------- From: Some Guy Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: calibration (fwd) On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Robert Paolino wrote: > I'm a little sceptical about the idea of trying to do the calibration > round with a "classic example" of every style for every judge panel. Skepticism is good. So is discussion. > 1. Using the "classic example" (preferably plural) is great for training > judges--and anyone else interested in beer appreciation, but the morning > of the competition is a little late for training. (Not that you can't have > "apprentice" judges matched up with a couple of experienced ones... but > the calibration beer is not going to train them.) Training and calibration are quite different. Similar to the differences between configuring a gauge and calibrating a gauge: one makes a gauge suitable to a purpose, the latter aids to ensure the gauge is not inducing a bias in its measurements. For the purposes of our discussion, we, homebrew judges, are the gauges. So I agree: the morning of a competition IS late for training, and a calibration beer will not train someone. We're on the same page here. > 2. Does using a "classic example" mean that (provided it is fresh) the > calibration beer is the "50" and anything that differs from it is > inferior? Most of us would agree that SNPA is _a_ "classic" American Pale > Ale, but does that mean that an entry that's more aggressively hopped or > uses Columbus instead of Cascade is less deserving of a high score because > it does not taste like SNPA?? The objective of the competition is not > to make clones (although I have seen a competition that had a "closest to > Saranac Pale Ale" category). No. Classic and perfect are not the same. Perhaps "representative" would have been a better choice of words in my original. The calibration beer, in my scenario, should have the more "prominent" characteristics that define the style to help key the judges to the characteristics to expect in the flight. They judge this beer, then discuss the score in order to "zero" their perceptions to assure reasonably similar scores through the flight. No magic; no mystery - and no setting any beer on a pedestal. > 3. I look upon the calibration as a "warm-up" exercise for judging, > regardless of the style used. I'd hope that the calibration beer wouldn't > be a palate-killer, like a barleywine or lambic, before judging Munich > Helles, but I think judging an English bitter or even an American Lager > serves the purpose just fine, even if I'm going to be judging > stouts. It gets people into the frame of mind for judging before getting > an actual entrant's beer. Indeed, this is fine! It is intended for a warm-up, but why not warm them up on what they're going to judge? Those judging barleywines may do better calibrating to them, rather than some beer that would seem insipid by comparison. Those judges calibrating on a English bitter would be burnt out for the American lager (though the converse would likely not be true) just as a barley wine may burn a judge out for any lighter style. What's the difference? And, if you were going to judge stouts, it might be better to prepare the palate for that style rather than throw it off with another. I don't need to tell you how very complex a good stout really is, and I also don't think I need to tell you how easy it is to lose the complexities of a stout to the very bold bitterness imparted by the grains typical to the style, particularly at the first tasting. I would rather have a non-competing "calibrator" the guinea pig than mine. To your side of the argument, there are styles in which a calibrator may do more harm than good. Lambic comes immediately to mind. Sampling too many lambics sours my palate in a hurry (and, damn it! I love 'em!). After several, I can't get my buds past the acids. If I happened to luck into a position judging lambics in a competition have beaucoup lambics, a calibrator might just throw me over for the last one or two in the flight. For others, the style may differ, but the effects are the same. > 4. The other purpose of a "calibration" round is what the word literally > means, to "calibrate" scoring to some "true" score on the scale, and to > advise judges that they may be scoring too low or too high. You can't > average 30 scores on 10 different beers and have it mean the same as 30 > scores on the same beer, unless you assume that each "classic example" > should get the same score as all the others, and an average of three > judges' scores on the same beer isn't very useful in advising judges that > they might be scoring higher/lower. True, statistics are in your favor here. But, being that calibrations are rarely done anyway, both our points are fairly moot. And, to suggest two "calibrations" - one for overall levelling of the scoring, and another to home in on the style at hand would be a bit extreme (but maybe a good thing to try at the MCAB. You listening Louis?) Also, I think any assumptions regarding the score of the calibration beer prior to review would be counter-productive, and would be one of the devils in the details: how you prevent the judges from having preconceived notions regarding the calibrator and acting on those during the analysis? Couple this with my aversion to blind tasting, and it becomes quite the quandary - not that the calibrator couldn't be blind to avoid just this. Of course, I think we're overanalyzing the suggestion, anyway. Far too much is being read into the original suggestion. It's definitely a pro/con concept: * The logistics suck for an organizer to try and pull it together. * The expense may be beyond the reach of the hosting organization(s) (but, in those rare instances where a judge knows what s/he is going to be judging, is there anything wrong with the judges themselves providing their own calibrator for the panel?). * There may not be readily available examples of the style * On ad infinitum. The sole potential pro is the "centering" of the panel on a style which *may* provide better quality judging to the entrant. Iffy benefit for a lot of grief. And a value judgement for those reading. I'd like to try it some time. > Now go have a beer, Yes, thank you! And you too! JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Return-Path: judge-owner at synchro.com Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA12947 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA29530 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/10/98 - 8/11/98 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:04:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ calibration (Robert Paolino) Re: Judges and bottles/calibration... (John DeCarlo) Re: Calibration Beers & Bottle Inspections (John or Barb Sullivan) Cal Beers (Russ Wigglesworth) Re: calibration (fwd) (Some Guy) -------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Paolino Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:39:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: calibration I'm a little sceptical about the idea of trying to do the calibration round with a "classic example" of every style for every judge panel. 1. Using the "classic example" (preferably plural) is great for training judges--and anyone else interested in beer appreciation, but the morning of the competition is a little late for training. (Not that you can't have "apprentice" judges matched up with a couple of experienced ones... but the calibration beer is not going to train them.) 2. Does using a "classic example" mean that (provided it is fresh) the calibration beer is the "50" and anything that differs from it is inferior? Most of us would agree that SNPA is _a_ "classic" American Pale Ale, but does that mean that an entry that's more aggressively hopped or uses Columbus instead of Cascade is less deserving of a high score because it does not taste like SNPA?? The objective of the competition is not to make clones (although I have seen a competition that had a "closest to Saranac Pale Ale" category). 3. I look upon the calibration as a "warm-up" exercise for judging, regardless of the style used. I'd hope that the calibration beer wouldn't be a palate-killer, like a barleywine or lambic, before judging Munich Helles, but I think judging an English bitter or even an American Lager serves the purpose just fine, even if I'm going to be judging stouts. It gets people into the frame of mind for judging before getting an actual entrant's beer. 4. The other purpose of a "calibration" round is what the word literally means, to "calibrate" scoring to some "true" score on the scale, and to advise judges that they may be scoring too low or too high. You can't average 30 scores on 10 different beers and have it mean the same as 30 scores on the same beer, unless you assume that each "classic example" should get the same score as all the others, and an average of three judges' scores on the same beer isn't very useful in advising judges that they might be scoring higher/lower. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer. Can you? Bland Beer is the Worst Sort of Tyranny! Don't drink bland industrial swill; it only encourages them to make more. Great Taste of the Midwest tickets now on sale! -------------------------------------------------------- From: John DeCarlo Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:58:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Judges and bottles/calibration... Some Guy (supposedly Pat Babcock) wrote: >Subject: Judges and bottles/calibration... >I disagree. It's not a separation, but another commonality. When I >distribute the fruits of my brewing, I don't go to the extremes of >purchasing custom-made bottles but I sure as hell make sure the bottle is >(a) not scratched to hell (b) "attractively" filled and, most >importantly, (c) CLEAN. Presentation. To convince those who have never >tried a home brewed beer to do so, it must first appeal to them. Just >like with the commercial beers [...] >Also, I think to not pay attention to the bottle at all would be to do a >disservice to the entrant. The care taken in packaging is as important as >the care taken in mashing. And the bottle is an intimate component of the >packaging process. Hmmm. Interesting points. I agree with Pat about presenting homebrew to friends, acquaintances, relatives, fellow party-goers. I try and bring the best looking bottles I have, and bring them back home. But for competitions where I know I will never see the bottle again, I have generally used the ugliest bottles. The insides are the same, in any case. Perhaps my assumptions that judges could handle ugly bottles has hurt my beer's score in the past. I think judges should keep in mind that the brewers aren't getting these bottles back and have an incentive not to send their most beautiful bottles. John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own email: jdecarlo at mitre.org voice: 703-883-7116 fax: 703-883-3383 -------------------------------------------------------- From: John or Barb Sullivan Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 06:27:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Calibration Beers & Bottle Inspections I believe that calibration beers have limited value. The first beer you judge in your flight will do more to calibrate your judging than a common example given to all judges to kick things off. Sometimes, depending upon the relative experience of your judge partners, it can take up to 3 or 4 beers before that judging table is "calibrated". Perhaps in a perfect world this should not be, but in most cases it is in fact a reality of judging. So my take is to dispense with the time wasting calibration beer and get down to business. Even if you do a calibration beer, how often do the judges at the table seriously consider the impact of their scoring? Furthermore, if they noted a wide discrepancy what would they/could they do about it in the few short minutes before the first beer comes out? "Hey you're scoring to high!" "No, I'm not." "Yes you are!" "OK, maybe I can score a little lower. How about you though, can you score a little higher then?" This fine tuning process cannot easily be accomplished with a calibration beer. Perhaps if the proper amount of time and instruction were put into calibration beers, I could see more value. To judge you should be prepared (both physically and from an educational standpoint) to begin judging without a calibration beer. Bottle inspections are not all that important. To ease the minds of the contestants, perhaps the statement "Not for Scoring Purposes" should be permanently placed on the scoresheet. As far as having the steward just bring the beers out in a glass, I am against that notion. Stewards have enough to do without having to pour each beer and then bring them out to the judges. Most importantly, having the bottle available to the judges allows everyone at the table to reconfirm the entry number. It also allows judges to disqualify a beer that violates the competition rules on anonymity. Bring me the bottle. It allows me to verify much (turbidity before the pour, gushing, etc.) even though I don't actually need it for scoring. John Sullivan St. Louis, MO -------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Wigglesworth Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:22:12 -0700 Subject: Cal Beers At the California State Homebrew Competition I have provided calibration beers which match the style of the flights for the past 5 or so years. It is not difficult but it does require a little effort. I do not supply these beers as "standards" against which the flight will be evaluated. In fact the judges are told that the purpose of the calibration beer is to get them to discuss the style prior to judging actual entries and to give them a throw away beer with which they can get the" feel" of the panel. A warm-up. Some cal beers may be the best beers in the flight, others not. Generally in categories where there has been some advanced preliminary judging I use one of the passed over entries for the cal beer. I am careful to review the preliminary score sheets in order to avoid infections, out of style, or grossly flawed entries. In other categories I get commercial beers or I use homebrew from my stock or that of friends. If I use commercial beers I always render them unidentifyable by changing their container. Sometimes I will add a bit of hop oil to further hide their identity. The cal beer is always of the least assertive sub-style of a category (no Imperial Stouts). For oddball categories (specialty, spice, fruit, herb, etc.) the cal beer style isn't very important so long as it isn't going to ruin the panel's palates. I generally use a light ale for these. RW... Russ Wigglesworth UCSF-Stanford Health Care Department of Radiology 415-476-3668 -------------------------------------------------------- From: Some Guy Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: calibration (fwd) On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Robert Paolino wrote: > I'm a little sceptical about the idea of trying to do the calibration > round with a "classic example" of every style for every judge panel. Skepticism is good. So is discussion. > 1. Using the "classic example" (preferably plural) is great for training > judges--and anyone else interested in beer appreciation, but the morning > of the competition is a little late for training. (Not that you can't have > "apprentice" judges matched up with a couple of experienced ones... but > the calibration beer is not going to train them.) Training and calibration are quite different. Similar to the differences between configuring a gauge and calibrating a gauge: one makes a gauge suitable to a purpose, the latter aids to ensure the gauge is not inducing a bias in its measurements. For the purposes of our discussion, we, homebrew judges, are the gauges. So I agree: the morning of a competition IS late for training, and a calibration beer will not train someone. We're on the same page here. > 2. Does using a "classic example" mean that (provided it is fresh) the > calibration beer is the "50" and anything that differs from it is > inferior? Most of us would agree that SNPA is _a_ "classic" American Pale > Ale, but does that mean that an entry that's more aggressively hopped or > uses Columbus instead of Cascade is less deserving of a high score because > it does not taste like SNPA?? The objective of the competition is not > to make clones (although I have seen a competition that had a "closest to > Saranac Pale Ale" category). No. Classic and perfect are not the same. Perhaps "representative" would have been a better choice of words in my original. The calibration beer, in my scenario, should have the more "prominent" characteristics that define the style to help key the judges to the characteristics to expect in the flight. They judge this beer, then discuss the score in order to "zero" their perceptions to assure reasonably similar scores through the flight. No magic; no mystery - and no setting any beer on a pedestal. > 3. I look upon the calibration as a "warm-up" exercise for judging, > regardless of the style used. I'd hope that the calibration beer wouldn't > be a palate-killer, like a barleywine or lambic, before judging Munich > Helles, but I think judging an English bitter or even an American Lager > serves the purpose just fine, even if I'm going to be judging > stouts. It gets people into the frame of mind for judging before getting > an actual entrant's beer. Indeed, this is fine! It is intended for a warm-up, but why not warm them up on what they're going to judge? Those judging barleywines may do better calibrating to them, rather than some beer that would seem insipid by comparison. Those judges calibrating on a English bitter would be burnt out for the American lager (though the converse would likely not be true) just as a barley wine may burn a judge out for any lighter style. What's the difference? And, if you were going to judge stouts, it might be better to prepare the palate for that style rather than throw it off with another. I don't need to tell you how very complex a good stout really is, and I also don't think I need to tell you how easy it is to lose the complexities of a stout to the very bold bitterness imparted by the grains typical to the style, particularly at the first tasting. I would rather have a non-competing "calibrator" the guinea pig than mine. To your side of the argument, there are styles in which a calibrator may do more harm than good. Lambic comes immediately to mind. Sampling too many lambics sours my palate in a hurry (and, damn it! I love 'em!). After several, I can't get my buds past the acids. If I happened to luck into a position judging lambics in a competition have beaucoup lambics, a calibrator might just throw me over for the last one or two in the flight. For others, the style may differ, but the effects are the same. > 4. The other purpose of a "calibration" round is what the word literally > means, to "calibrate" scoring to some "true" score on the scale, and to > advise judges that they may be scoring too low or too high. You can't > average 30 scores on 10 different beers and have it mean the same as 30 > scores on the same beer, unless you assume that each "classic example" > should get the same score as all the others, and an average of three > judges' scores on the same beer isn't very useful in advising judges that > they might be scoring higher/lower. True, statistics are in your favor here. But, being that calibrations are rarely done anyway, both our points are fairly moot. And, to suggest two "calibrations" - one for overall levelling of the scoring, and another to home in on the style at hand would be a bit extreme (but maybe a good thing to try at the MCAB. You listening Louis?) Also, I think any assumptions regarding the score of the calibration beer prior to review would be counter-productive, and would be one of the devils in the details: how you prevent the judges from having preconceived notions regarding the calibrator and acting on those during the analysis? Couple this with my aversion to blind tasting, and it becomes quite the quandary - not that the calibrator couldn't be blind to avoid just this. Of course, I think we're overanalyzing the suggestion, anyway. Far too much is being read into the original suggestion. It's definitely a pro/con concept: * The logistics suck for an organizer to try and pull it together. * The expense may be beyond the reach of the hosting organization(s) (but, in those rare instances where a judge knows what s/he is going to be judging, is there anything wrong with the judges themselves providing their own calibrator for the panel?). * There may not be readily available examples of the style * On ad infinitum. The sole potential pro is the "centering" of the panel on a style which *may* provide better quality judging to the entrant. Iffy benefit for a lot of grief. And a value judgement for those reading. I'd like to try it some time. > Now go have a beer, Yes, thank you! And you too! JudgeNet - the beer judge digest