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 CAA03776
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:23:13 -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 CAA21682
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:23:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 8/11/98 - 8/12/98
Message-ID: <SYNC445810EE5 at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:01:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Another suggestion to improve judging quality (Shortell, Joanne)
Calibration (Spencer W Thomas)
Bottle Inspections (Norman Dickenson)
calibrating and stuff (Dave Sapsis)
Entry Bottles & Calibration Beers (CLSAXER at aol.com)
calibration/commercial examples of IBUs (Al Korzonas)
Call for judges for 1998 Colorado State Fiar Competition (Kevin Schutz)

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Shortell, Joanne  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:40:00 -0400
Subject: Another suggestion to improve judging quality


As a fairly inexperienced judge, I've been in situations where I didn't
feel entirely comfortable judging a particular style of beer to which
I'd been assigned.  However, had I known beforehand that I would be
asked to judge that style, I would have come to the contest better
prepared (e.g., try to get some commercial examples or at least do some
reading on those beers and the style in general).  I realize that it
would be a bit of a burden to let people know ahead of time which styles
they were most likely to be judging (and it would be unrealistic to
think that last-minute changes would not occur), but I truly believe it
would improve the quality of the judging.  

Joanne Shortell (shortelj at bdd.com)
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Spencer W Thomas  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:43:00 -0400
Subject: Calibration


At the MI state fair competition judging last weekend, we were
provided with a style-appropriate calibrator for each flight.  The
inexperienced judge sitting diagonally across the table from me asked
"is this supposed to be a great example of the style?"  His judging
partner said "absolutely not!"  (I thought, "YES!")  In fact, the beer
we were given was a pretty good example of its style (we scored it
about 36, as I recall), but not great.

Most of the calibrators were homebrews from the extensive collection
of the competition organizer.  In a few cases, where he didn't brew in
that style, he used a commercial beer.  But again, there was no
expectation that the beer was a wonderful example of the style.  All
the calibrators were presented blind, so the judges presumably had no
preconceptions (as they might have for the barleywine calibrator --
Bigfoot 1995).

I thought it worked very well.  Brag time -- on the afternoon flight
we (4 judges) calibrated on a Bohemian pils and gave it 36, 36.5, 37,
37!  First time I've ever had a table be that close to each other.  My
judging partner and I continued this performance throughout the
flight, scoring within 2 points on almost all the beers.  It was a
fantastic experience (and a bunch of pretty good beers, too!)

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman Dickenson  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:29:56 -0700
Subject: Bottle Inspections


                      Subject:                              Time:  7:09 AM
  OFFICE MEMO         Bottle Inspections                    Date:  8/11/98

On Aug. 11, John Sullivan posted:

>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.

Ahhhhh......... I don't know how competitions are structured in
other parts of the country, but around here judges do not disqualify
entries from competitions for any entry infraction.  Their job is
to judge the beer, not the packaging.  That deleterious responsiblity 
is reserved solely for the competition organizer.  A competent 
organizer will be aware of problem entries in his/her competition
before sending them to the judges.  If an entry is disqualified by
the organizer, it usually will still be judged, though not be eligible
for prizes.    To inform the judges of the disqualification would
create bias.

Norm Dickenson

JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Sapsis  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:47:51 -0700
Subject: calibrating and stuff


Regarding calibration, to me it is simply to get some beer in my mouth
other than an entrants.  Judging often starts off in the morning, and a
fresh mouth trends to be hypersensitive -- bitterness particualrly.
While target calibration beers are nice, there is a flip side: the
judges assume that the calibration is the (only) target.

On the other hand, the calibration as calibration is also desirable, but
folks really do have different percpetions *and* different hedonics for
those perceptions.  Case in point:  A comp I judged in calibrated with
an Ameircan premium lager.  I thought it was spot on, gave it a 45.
Both the other judges at my table dinged it seriously (32 and 28).  I
asked why -- both said they didnt "like" it.  They made no mention of
flaws or style divergence.  After a short treatise on prejudice, I
huddled back to my corner.....

And on the notion that stewards should not pour beer, someone mentioned
that "judges know how to pour beer"  I am really not sure there is a
right way and a wrong way, just ways folks like, and ways they do not
like.  I tend to adjust the aggressiveness of the pour based on the
early tells reagrading carbonation that I get when opeing and pouring
the first glass.  In many years of beer judging I have seen numerous
examples of beers dinged for poor foam stand when it was never even
given the chance to form.  I have a way of pouring that I prefer, but
some folks think their way is better.  Is there a standard?  No.
Possibly we need to develop a manual of serving or something
(temperatures, glassware, pouring guidelines, etc.) 

That said, I've known some very good pouring stewards.

peace.
--dave, sacramento
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: CLSAXER at aol.com  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:07:55 EDT
Subject: Entry Bottles & Calibration Beers


In Digest for the period 8/10/98 - 8/11/98  John DeCarlo writes:
>>...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...<<

In a perfect world the bottle would not matter, only what's inside.  However
that's not the way it works out there in homebrew competition land.  As the
saying goes in the fine dining industry, "Presentation is everything."  As
much as we all hope our entry will be judged objectively according to the beer
inside the bottle, many judges are swayed in their opinions by the looks of
the bottle.  Not fair, but sadly true. 
The only time I bottle beer anymore is for entering homebrew competitions.  I
always use the best bottles I have.  They are usually Sam Adams bottles that
have only held Sam Adams previously.  They are shiney clean and are capped
with a first run, one color crown cap (no blacking out with magic marker...).
The entries are clean and visibly pleasing, while still anonymous.  That way
the entry is (hopefully) only subject to the judge's idea of a proper fill
level during the bottle inspection.  I can't hurt to work on good
presentation.

I thought calibration beers were used to wet the judges whistles, as it were.
To make for a level playing field for all the entries to be judged by getting
beer across the judges tongues before the actual judging begins.  The
calibration beer helps to get rid of the first beer bias that comes with that
first taste of beer at 10:00 in the morning. It allows the judges to compare
the flavors they each taste in the beer, to calibrate with each other, and get
the lines of communication established between all the players at the table.
I never thought it was supposed to be a class in beer styles, just a warm up
for the real deal.

Carl Saxer
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Al Korzonas  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: calibration/commercial examples of IBUs


Bob writes:
>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).

For many years, I've been of the same opinion, but this year I have had
two experiences that have shown me the two extremes of this issue.

I entered a Bamberger-style Rauchbier in the Chicago 1st round this year.
I noticed an Aecht Schlenkerla on the calibration table after all the
judging was complete.  My beer was modeled after the beer made at the
Spezial hausbrauerei and therefore had about half the smokiness of
Schlenkerla.  My beer didn't make it to the 2nd round -- not smoky enough.

Conversely, it just so happens that I judged Smoked beers in the 2nd round
in Portland.  Again, our calibration beer was Aecht Schlenkerla.  Had we
not had a true Rauchbier (and very good one at that) as our calibration
beer, I think we would have thought two of the three winners to be over-
smoked.  Two of the three winning beers were very smoky, but they were
within range of the Schlenkerla.  I, personally, probably would have thought
the homebrews were overdone had I not been able to go back and taste some
of that Schlenkerla and verify that, sure enough, the beers were not too
smoky.  I'd like to point out that they were not clones of Schlenkerla
either... one was made with alder-smoked malt (made me want to run out and
get some smoked salmon) and another was beechwood, I think, but not a
Schlenkerla clone by any stretch of the imagination.

As it turns out, I don't think my beer would have had a chance against the
three winners... but I know how good my beer has to be next year!

***
Dennis writes (who ironically was my judging partner for those Smoked beers):
>I am looking for suggestions on commerical beers that I could use to give
>an idea of what the IBU corresponds to taste.  I know some people
>interested in starting to judge, and I thought it would be helpful. 
> 
>I thought about having beers in the 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 IBU range to give
>people to help correlate the characteristics of the beer to the IBU number;
>especially differences because of other factors such as maltiness, etc.  It
>would help me too.

There's a whole book full of them... Essentials of Beer Style by Fred
Eckhardt.  However, you must be aware (as the book even shows vividly for
Budweiser) that:

1. brewers do indeed change the IBU levels of their beers,

2. percieved bitterness does indeed decrease with age (I don't know if
the actual, measured IBU level changes too), and

3. sulphate increases the perceived level of bitterness (the 32 IBUs
of a high-sulphate Dortmunder tasted more bitter to me than the
40 IBUs of a low-suphate Pilsner Urquell).
 
This is a very tricky problem you've proposed Dennis... all I can suggest
is that you try and get the most up-to-date values (you can write to some
of the breweries via email and sometimes they list the IBUs on their
websites), keep the sulphate issue in mind when selecting examples and
try to get the freshest bottles you can (there are several high-traffic
stores here in Chicago that have a much higher turnover than most)...
consider that some brands will have very low turnover regardless of the
store (e.g. Samuel Adams Triplebock [sic - it's actually a Barleywine
made with Champagne yeast]).

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Schutz  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:14:49 -0600
Subject: Call for judges for 1998 Colorado State Fiar Competition


Hi all,

The 1998 Colorado State Fair judging will take place on Saturday, August
29th, in Colorado Springs, and on Sunday, September 6th, in Pueblo.  The
first round will be held at the new Thunder Ridge Brewing Company
in downtown Colorado Springs.  The Colorado Springs microbrewery festival
will also be the same day, and is held 1/2 block from Thunder Ridge.  The
second round will be held at the fairgrounds in Pueblo during the Fair.

Letters to all known BJCP judges living in Colorado were mailed last month.
Several were returned as undeliverable.  If you did not receive your letter,
please let me know by direct reply.

If anyone would like more information regarding this year's judging, please
contact me directly.

Thanks,

Kevin Schutz
Colorado Springs, CO
kschutz at kktv.com
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 CAA03776
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:23:13 -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 CAA21682
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:23:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 8/11/98 - 8/12/98
Message-ID: <SYNC445810EE5 at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:01:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Another suggestion to improve judging quality (Shortell, Joanne)
Calibration (Spencer W Thomas)
Bottle Inspections (Norman Dickenson)
calibrating and stuff (Dave Sapsis)
Entry Bottles & Calibration Beers (CLSAXER at aol.com)
calibration/commercial examples of IBUs (Al Korzonas)
Call for judges for 1998 Colorado State Fiar Competition (Kevin Schutz)

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Shortell, Joanne  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:40:00 -0400
Subject: Another suggestion to improve judging quality


As a fairly inexperienced judge, I've been in situations where I didn't
feel entirely comfortable judging a particular style of beer to which
I'd been assigned.  However, had I known beforehand that I would be
asked to judge that style, I would have come to the contest better
prepared (e.g., try to get some commercial examples or at least do some
reading on those beers and the style in general).  I realize that it
would be a bit of a burden to let people know ahead of time which styles
they were most likely to be judging (and it would be unrealistic to
think that last-minute changes would not occur), but I truly believe it
would improve the quality of the judging.  

Joanne Shortell (shortelj at bdd.com)
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Spencer W Thomas  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:43:00 -0400
Subject: Calibration


At the MI state fair competition judging last weekend, we were
provided with a style-appropriate calibrator for each flight.  The
inexperienced judge sitting diagonally across the table from me asked
"is this supposed to be a great example of the style?"  His judging
partner said "absolutely not!"  (I thought, "YES!")  In fact, the beer
we were given was a pretty good example of its style (we scored it
about 36, as I recall), but not great.

Most of the calibrators were homebrews from the extensive collection
of the competition organizer.  In a few cases, where he didn't brew in
that style, he used a commercial beer.  But again, there was no
expectation that the beer was a wonderful example of the style.  All
the calibrators were presented blind, so the judges presumably had no
preconceptions (as they might have for the barleywine calibrator --
Bigfoot 1995).

I thought it worked very well.  Brag time -- on the afternoon flight
we (4 judges) calibrated on a Bohemian pils and gave it 36, 36.5, 37,
37!  First time I've ever had a table be that close to each other.  My
judging partner and I continued this performance throughout the
flight, scoring within 2 points on almost all the beers.  It was a
fantastic experience (and a bunch of pretty good beers, too!)

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman Dickenson  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:29:56 -0700
Subject: Bottle Inspections


                      Subject:                              Time:  7:09 AM
  OFFICE MEMO         Bottle Inspections                    Date:  8/11/98

On Aug. 11, John Sullivan posted:

>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.

Ahhhhh......... I don't know how competitions are structured in
other parts of the country, but around here judges do not disqualify
entries from competitions for any entry infraction.  Their job is
to judge the beer, not the packaging.  That deleterious responsiblity 
is reserved solely for the competition organizer.  A competent 
organizer will be aware of problem entries in his/her competition
before sending them to the judges.  If an entry is disqualified by
the organizer, it usually will still be judged, though not be eligible
for prizes.    To inform the judges of the disqualification would
create bias.

Norm Dickenson

JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Sapsis  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:47:51 -0700
Subject: calibrating and stuff


Regarding calibration, to me it is simply to get some beer in my mouth
other than an entrants.  Judging often starts off in the morning, and a
fresh mouth trends to be hypersensitive -- bitterness particualrly.
While target calibration beers are nice, there is a flip side: the
judges assume that the calibration is the (only) target.

On the other hand, the calibration as calibration is also desirable, but
folks really do have different percpetions *and* different hedonics for
those perceptions.  Case in point:  A comp I judged in calibrated with
an Ameircan premium lager.  I thought it was spot on, gave it a 45.
Both the other judges at my table dinged it seriously (32 and 28).  I
asked why -- both said they didnt "like" it.  They made no mention of
flaws or style divergence.  After a short treatise on prejudice, I
huddled back to my corner.....

And on the notion that stewards should not pour beer, someone mentioned
that "judges know how to pour beer"  I am really not sure there is a
right way and a wrong way, just ways folks like, and ways they do not
like.  I tend to adjust the aggressiveness of the pour based on the
early tells reagrading carbonation that I get when opeing and pouring
the first glass.  In many years of beer judging I have seen numerous
examples of beers dinged for poor foam stand when it was never even
given the chance to form.  I have a way of pouring that I prefer, but
some folks think their way is better.  Is there a standard?  No.
Possibly we need to develop a manual of serving or something
(temperatures, glassware, pouring guidelines, etc.) 

That said, I've known some very good pouring stewards.

peace.
--dave, sacramento
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: CLSAXER at aol.com  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:07:55 EDT
Subject: Entry Bottles & Calibration Beers


In Digest for the period 8/10/98 - 8/11/98  John DeCarlo writes:
>>...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...<<

In a perfect world the bottle would not matter, only what's inside.  However
that's not the way it works out there in homebrew competition land.  As the
saying goes in the fine dining industry, "Presentation is everything."  As
much as we all hope our entry will be judged objectively according to the beer
inside the bottle, many judges are swayed in their opinions by the looks of
the bottle.  Not fair, but sadly true. 
The only time I bottle beer anymore is for entering homebrew competitions.  I
always use the best bottles I have.  They are usually Sam Adams bottles that
have only held Sam Adams previously.  They are shiney clean and are capped
with a first run, one color crown cap (no blacking out with magic marker...).
The entries are clean and visibly pleasing, while still anonymous.  That way
the entry is (hopefully) only subject to the judge's idea of a proper fill
level during the bottle inspection.  I can't hurt to work on good
presentation.

I thought calibration beers were used to wet the judges whistles, as it were.
To make for a level playing field for all the entries to be judged by getting
beer across the judges tongues before the actual judging begins.  The
calibration beer helps to get rid of the first beer bias that comes with that
first taste of beer at 10:00 in the morning. It allows the judges to compare
the flavors they each taste in the beer, to calibrate with each other, and get
the lines of communication established between all the players at the table.
I never thought it was supposed to be a class in beer styles, just a warm up
for the real deal.

Carl Saxer
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Al Korzonas  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: calibration/commercial examples of IBUs


Bob writes:
>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).

For many years, I've been of the same opinion, but this year I have had
two experiences that have shown me the two extremes of this issue.

I entered a Bamberger-style Rauchbier in the Chicago 1st round this year.
I noticed an Aecht Schlenkerla on the calibration table after all the
judging was complete.  My beer was modeled after the beer made at the
Spezial hausbrauerei and therefore had about half the smokiness of
Schlenkerla.  My beer didn't make it to the 2nd round -- not smoky enough.

Conversely, it just so happens that I judged Smoked beers in the 2nd round
in Portland.  Again, our calibration beer was Aecht Schlenkerla.  Had we
not had a true Rauchbier (and very good one at that) as our calibration
beer, I think we would have thought two of the three winners to be over-
smoked.  Two of the three winning beers were very smoky, but they were
within range of the Schlenkerla.  I, personally, probably would have thought
the homebrews were overdone had I not been able to go back and taste some
of that Schlenkerla and verify that, sure enough, the beers were not too
smoky.  I'd like to point out that they were not clones of Schlenkerla
either... one was made with alder-smoked malt (made me want to run out and
get some smoked salmon) and another was beechwood, I think, but not a
Schlenkerla clone by any stretch of the imagination.

As it turns out, I don't think my beer would have had a chance against the
three winners... but I know how good my beer has to be next year!

***
Dennis writes (who ironically was my judging partner for those Smoked beers):
>I am looking for suggestions on commerical beers that I could use to give
>an idea of what the IBU corresponds to taste.  I know some people
>interested in starting to judge, and I thought it would be helpful. 
> 
>I thought about having beers in the 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 IBU range to give
>people to help correlate the characteristics of the beer to the IBU number;
>especially differences because of other factors such as maltiness, etc.  It
>would help me too.

There's a whole book full of them... Essentials of Beer Style by Fred
Eckhardt.  However, you must be aware (as the book even shows vividly for
Budweiser) that:

1. brewers do indeed change the IBU levels of their beers,

2. percieved bitterness does indeed decrease with age (I don't know if
the actual, measured IBU level changes too), and

3. sulphate increases the perceived level of bitterness (the 32 IBUs
of a high-sulphate Dortmunder tasted more bitter to me than the
40 IBUs of a low-suphate Pilsner Urquell).
 
This is a very tricky problem you've proposed Dennis... all I can suggest
is that you try and get the most up-to-date values (you can write to some
of the breweries via email and sometimes they list the IBUs on their
websites), keep the sulphate issue in mind when selecting examples and
try to get the freshest bottles you can (there are several high-traffic
stores here in Chicago that have a much higher turnover than most)...
consider that some brands will have very low turnover regardless of the
store (e.g. Samuel Adams Triplebock [sic - it's actually a Barleywine
made with Champagne yeast]).

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Schutz  Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:14:49 -0600
Subject: Call for judges for 1998 Colorado State Fiar Competition


Hi all,

The 1998 Colorado State Fair judging will take place on Saturday, August
29th, in Colorado Springs, and on Sunday, September 6th, in Pueblo.  The
first round will be held at the new Thunder Ridge Brewing Company
in downtown Colorado Springs.  The Colorado Springs microbrewery festival
will also be the same day, and is held 1/2 block from Thunder Ridge.  The
second round will be held at the fairgrounds in Pueblo during the Fair.

Letters to all known BJCP judges living in Colorado were mailed last month.
Several were returned as undeliverable.  If you did not receive your letter,
please let me know by direct reply.

If anyone would like more information regarding this year's judging, please
contact me directly.

Thanks,

Kevin Schutz
Colorado Springs, CO
kschutz at kktv.com
JudgeNet - the beer judge digest