# Judging Standards And Fake Entries



## dr K (2/11/06)

I guess that this is some attempt to join two threads, the OT label morphs beer and the what goes on behind the scenes.
Just because someone has BJCP training and even recognition does not mean that they are a great judge.
It does mean, however, that their skills and knowledge have been tested and assessed by recognised and highly experienced peers and that they have been acknowleged. 
I personally know a number of very good judges who have not taken the BJCP path, judges whose knowledge and opinion I hold in the highest esteem and guys who have mentored me for many years. 
Personally I am not a great fan of judging, I find it draining and can think of better things to do with my right hand than write but I do judge and hope that I do a reasonable job.
The BJCP programme has been runing here now for two full series of exams, it is hard work to do the training but I assure you well worth it, not just for the individuals who take the time but for brewing in Australia as a whole.
Over the next few years more and more people may take the plunge but in the meantime more and more people who choose not to will be exposed to and influenced by the quality and high standards that the BJCP brings.
Fake Beers and False Entires:
It is bad form to deliberately enter a bad beer, especially if you know it to be infected. It screws the judges palates and may damage another brewers chances.
Doctored commercial beers...you are only fooling yourself.
"Wrong" classification....OK you have brewed a classic bohemian pilsener, except its not quite there, well you feel its not quite there, but then it may be a bit spicy for a german pilsner.....easy...enter the same beer twice, as a BP and as a GP, let three judges decide, you never know you might get first and second..I have been asked about this a number of times and I stick to the argument "just because you say it is does not mean that it is..." 
Finally though, be at peace with your judges for whatever work and drudgery you put into your beer (unless it was a sham) and what ever dreams are broken by their judging it is still a beautifull beer.


----------



## GMK (2/11/06)

Well - very Well Said Dr K.


----------



## barfridge (3/11/06)

<puts down the VB bottle, oak chips and marker pen>

Expect a great new version of GMK's barley wine at the comps next year!


----------



## Fingerlickin_B (3/11/06)

dr K said:


> Doctored commercial beers...you are only fooling yourself.



Do people really try this on? :blink: 

PZ.


----------



## Whistlingjack (3/11/06)

What are you really saying?

Judges can be fooled by doctored brews? Who would do this? To what end?


----------



## Adamt (3/11/06)

Response to above:

Someone mentioned in a thread which is now closed for OT reasons that one of their friends poured LCPA into another bottle with a bit of yeast and sugar and entered in to a comp as his own.

Silly, proves nothing and probably tasted different/bad with a new yeast and sugar.


----------



## Tseay (3/11/06)

I think more needs to be done to improve taste training for judges. The BJCP training is worthwhile and provides a sound basis for judging, but like it or not, competitions are the principal way to introduce new judges to the craft. It's then up to the more experienced to guide the newer judges through the process. I think this is more a growing pain problem rather than a fault in the process.

Over time the pranksters, along with the unreliable and unprofessional will be weeded out and sent back to their sheds. We are all busy, there is simply too much effort involved in competition organisation to tolerate these sorts of behaviours. (To quote G&S "I've got a little list, they never would be missed, they never would be missed ...")


----------



## Screwtop (3/11/06)

Thanks Dr K, for adding some sense to this debate.

Especially:


> It is bad form to deliberately enter a bad beer, especially if you know it to be infected. It screws the judges palates and may damage another brewers chances.


----------



## johnno (3/11/06)

So a homebrewer makes a beer and it turns out that it is not quite right.

They think there may be something wrong with it but are not quite sure. Probably due to the fact that they brewer is a young brewer and does not have much experience eg me.

What is the problem with entering a beer like that in a comp? 

I'snt this a good oppurtunity for the brewer to get his beer assessed by more their more experienced peers and find out what they may have done wrong and be able to change part of the brewing process next time?

I'snt this what judging is about?

Or are judges assessing beers contantly worrying about the infected beer they may get that will "screw their palates"?

cheers
johnno


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/11/06)

Whistlingjack said:


> What are you really saying?
> 
> Judges can be fooled by doctored brews? Who would do this? To what end?



I actually heard from somebody, who heard from somebody, who heard from a friend at work who heard from a cousin of a second cousin of a friend...

It was actually a doctored homebrew that killed JFK and Marilyn Monroe (and possibly Elvis). h34r: 

Warren -


----------



## johnno (3/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> It was actually a doctored homebrew that killed JFK and Marilyn Monroe (and possibly Elvis). h34r:
> Warren -




It is a known fact that Elvis is a member of this board. So that rules him out.


cheers
johnno


----------



## Batz (3/11/06)

I am sure I'll be over it by next year but these threads have really put me off entering any beers in any comps.

And it's got nothing to do with the judges.

Batz (getting seriously pissed off with this debate)


----------



## AndrewQLD (3/11/06)

Batz said:


> I am sure I'll be over it by next year but these threads have really put me off entering any beers in any comps.
> 
> And it's got nothing to do with the judges.
> 
> Batz (getting seriously pissed off with this debate)



Dito.

Andrew


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/11/06)

AndrewQLD said:


> Batz said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure I'll be over it by next year but these threads have really put me off entering any beers in any comps.
> ...



Hence my flippant response. This thread is a WOFTAM.

Ditto me too.  

Warren -


----------



## bugwan (3/11/06)

I wonder if entering a re-badged or dodgy wine would be picked up in a similar competition?

I think the HomeBrew judging industry (in Australia anyway) is still in relative infancy, but with numbers picking up quickly. There seems to have been a surge in interest in the last 5 years, which is fantastic.

I think it will just take time to iron out a few kinks in the system. I also think it's harder to strictly judge beer than wine. Shiraz, Merlot, Sauv Blanc. We know them all and what they should taste like, but beers sometimes defy classes and strata...

I have great respect for the beer judges we have in Australia, especially since I wouldn't be able to do it myself! That said, I know what I like and that's what I brew.


----------



## DarkFaerytale (3/11/06)

whats woftam short for?


----------



## bugwan (3/11/06)

DarkFaerytale said:


> whats woftam short for?



According to Google, it's either the World of Fine Theatre and Music, or Waste Of Finances Time And Machinery... :huh:


----------



## johnno (3/11/06)

I see no problem with discussing judging standards. 

There are over 3000 registered members and probably just as many topics if not more.

This is a discussion forum. Hence we are here to discuss beer related stuff. 

Beer comps are becoming more predominant in the homebrewing scene and it is 



cheers
johnno


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/11/06)

Johnno

A couple of unproven accusations and heresays ain't exactly accentuating the positives though.  

Warren -


----------



## DarkFaerytale (3/11/06)

cheers bugwan


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/11/06)

DarkFaerytale said:


> whats woftam short for?



Try this page for a better explanation. 

Warren -


----------



## Thommo (3/11/06)

Just want to clear something up.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with entering an infected or far from perfect beer into a comp for an honest evaluation. It's a good way to get tips on how to improve a beer or to identify how a fault or infection happened. Comps aren't all about the bling and the glamour, they serve another helpful purpose that can sometimes be overlooked.

It is however inexcusable to enter an infected APA as a Gueuze and see if you can win any awards that way. Fooling judges with your re-bottled Little Creatures doesn't make you more clever than them, nor does it discredit a competition in any way, it just shows you have too much time on your hands, and it may take away a prize from someone more deserving.

Cheers,
Thommo.


----------



## Lukes (3/11/06)

I wonder if this lady has entered any comps in Africa with this killer brew.  :blink:


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/11/06)

Lukes said:


> I wonder if this lady has entered any comps in Africa with this killer brew.  :blink:



No, however I think her husband may have taken me the long way to the airport in his taxi the other day. :lol: 

Warren -


----------



## Lindsay Dive (3/11/06)

johnno said:


> So a homebrewer makes a beer and it turns out that it is not quite right.
> 
> They think there may be something wrong with it but are not quite sure. Probably due to the fact that they brewer is a young brewer and does not have much experience eg me.
> 
> ...



Johnno,

I think you have hit the nail on the head as far as what the entrant wishes to get in terms of feed back from a competition.
You here this time and time again...."I just can't get this beer right and I want to know what I'm doing wrong".
Hopefully, the judges are up to speed and can let the entrant know.
It's not nice getting an infected beer, however, you're not forced to taste it! If it does slip your guard and you do taste a badly infected beer, let me tell you, it can take some munching on water busicuits, bread and swilling lot's of water before you're ready for the next beer. I am pretty sure that there would be numerous judges that would agree with me on this one.

Regards,
Lindsay.

P.S. Dr. K you are absolutely spot on!


----------



## /// (3/11/06)

You here this time and time again...."I just can't get this beer right and I want to know what I'm doing wrong".

[/quote]

I think we would agree that the judge is to judge the beer, not make judgements on the beer or the brewer! And what better way than to have your Peers make recomendations.

Scotty


----------



## Lindsay Dive (3/11/06)

Thommo said:


> Just want to clear something up.
> 
> IMO, there is nothing wrong with entering an infected or far from perfect beer into a comp for an honest evaluation.
> Cheers,
> Thommo.



Thommo,

I am of the opinion that there is a vast difference between and infected beer and a beer that is far from perfect.
An infected beer to me is intirely that and should be discarded. 
I am NOT into telling people what the infection is and how to eliminate it. Let the Chemists handle that job!

Regards,
Lindsay.


----------



## Adamt (3/11/06)

This problem is not unique in society.

Brewing is an art, we know that. What judges taste, enjoy, and believe is in style is a matter dependant on opinion. Opinion creates problems, especially when it comes to competitiveness.

How many pieces of art in the art gallery do you look at and go "that's terrible, its just a blank page with a few squiggles and colours on it, no skill at all", yet it's behind 3 security guards and is worth more than your entire extended family? I discovered this early in my life, just before high school and really made me dislike things judged on opinion, hence I'm now a maths/science geek who likes being judged on the correct answer.

But I digress, I like the idea of BJCP judging, an attempt to quantify each defining part of the beer, based on the style guidelines. The individual scores are devised, based on opinion, however through training a consistent taste calibration of these ratings could be achieved. 

Entering a recapped and recarb'd beer in my opinion is not a problem for judges. It is a problem for the brewer in the same way a plagiarised document is for a writer. A plagiarised beer may still be a good beer, and should be judged accordingly to style. However should a beer-plagiarist win a competition or a prize, it's an ethical problem for the brewer which may not be able to be prevented. 

Entering a beer that the brewer knows is not perfect is fine. Why isn't it? Judges should be able to pick up flaws based on the style, each judge be able to make a similar judgement. If a judge gives good scores for a pilsener in the APA category there's a problem. Consistent scores shows the brewer the problem areas with the beer and allows him/her to rectify these to create a better beer. This is EXACTLY what we want in the homebrewing society, better beer.

However, all judging is based on style. The styles are defined by BJCP to discern different ales/lagers and specialties. Your favourite summer beer may not exactly fit a specific style, should it not be entered? If it were entered, the brewer should expect judges to pick out style problems with the beer, as well as any minor infections/off-flavours, etc. 

Human judges can never be perfect. There is always an error in human processes, no matter how skilled that person may be. I'm sure (with all due respect), many judges for our local competitions are far from perfect. On a different day a different winner may be announced out of a select few. 

Brewing competitions shouldn't be taken with complete seriousness. Sure they are competitive, but it is the opinion of the judges that will ultimately determine the winner. Remember, there are worse competitions out there. Think of the "Academy Awards", no scoring, no visible judges, just "YOU WIN! Congratulations on your next movie being worth an extra $200 million to you". 

Brewing competitions should be fun and informative, honest place-getters should be happy for making a quality beer and should strive to further perfect their beer to style or personal taste. Relax, don't worry, have, and brew a homebrew you are happy with.


----------



## Belgrave Brewer (3/11/06)

Lindsay Dive said:


> Thommo said:
> 
> 
> > Just want to clear something up.
> ...



If you are entering an infected beer into competition, it should be in the infected beer category. Not sure if you would be proud to win this category...*1st Place - Best Infected Beer!!!* 

Would you inform the Judge that it was infected before it was tasted? Sorry if I'm out of place, but I would have a serious problem with entering an infected beer.


----------



## MAH (3/11/06)

Personally I think the BJCP is a load of bollocks. Apart from having misgivings about their revisionist approach to style guidleines (Irish Red Ale :lol: , American Brown Ale :lol: ), their approach to accrediting judges is also crap. From an educational perspective it overly focuses on one particular learning style. To qualify you must take an exam. This automatically favours those with good rote learning abilities. Further, assessment by 100% exam is often associated with a lack of a broad and critical understanding of the subject matter. Admittedly the exam does require essay responses that mitigate the negative aspects of rote learning to some degree, but it is still heavily weighted to simply demonstrating an ability to recall or "parrot back" information. This aspect accounts for 70% of all marks in the BJCP exam.

The actual ability to taste beer only accounts for 30% of the exam . I believe this is the most damning aspect of the BJCP. Who really gives a rat's arse if you can recite back differences between a BoPils and German Pilsner. I want to know that you have the palate to *TASTE * the difference. Not only is the tasting component worth only 30% of the overall score but you are only assessed on 4 beers.

Yes we need good beer judges but the BJCP is not the Holy Grail it's ofetn held out to be and I think a simple evaluation of the BJCP's pedagogy highlights this.

Then when you start to look at ranking of judges and the criteria for achieveing the next level, the BJCP becomes even more farcical. Have a look for yourself and tell me if you don't piss your pants laughing at the notion of being called a Grand Master - First Degree. Also, titles such as Honorary Grand Master further cast into doubt the seriousness of the qualifications. To quote the BJCP "Honoray Grand Master - Created in 2005, this is a permanent rank bestowed upon individuals by the BJCP Board of Directors for extraordinarily long and meritorious service involving significant, meaningful and continuous work for the BJCP program. Individuals receiving this rank are authorized to wear and use the Grand Master pin and rank" :lol: . The whole ranking system makes it sound like some weird lodge rather than a system of accreditation.

But as I have already said, I think the system is flawed as it pays lip service to a persons palate and actual ability to taste and evaluate beers.

OK, what' the answer then? I don't have one, but BJCP is not it.

For anyone interested in learning more about the BJCP exam and wants to make up their own mind about it's ability to properly accredit an individuals ability to taste beer, then go here.

I know this is going to upset those who have put time and effort into gaining their BJCP qualifications and as I understand it, the process of studying for the exam is highly worthwile and enlightening, but you don't need BJCP to go through the process of tasting and learning about beer.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Thommo (3/11/06)

I could well be the one who is out of place.

I'm doing the BJCP at the moment with some of the other Hills Brewers. I may have incorrectly assumed that since part of the course was about how to identify infections and off flavours that it was all "part of the service".

However, one thing I did notice with regard to a few of the infections is that it took me a bit of time to pick it up at all. Can't rember which ones directly, but at the time when we were sipping them some of them did not jump out and slam the senses into oblivion, if you know what I mean.

If I brewed a beer with a certain taste that I couldn't pick, and wasn't sure if it was an infection or merely some other fault caused by my processes, or if it was a style new to me and I wanted to know if this particular "taste" belonged to this style, or if I was using a new yeast for the first time and wasn't sure if this could perhaps explain the new taste, then I would have no qualms about entering it into a comp.

Having said that, let me explain how I came up with my Gueuze example in my earlier post. I brewed an APA that tasted OK out of the fermenter, but once bottled developed a sour, gut wrenching puckering taste to it. Took it along to the BJCP boys one night. They all agreed it absolutely sucked. Definately an infection. We tried to determine where the problem occurred, etc.

Two hours later, after the notes and discussion of the nights topic were out of the way, it was time to taste the style chosen for that night. 17. Sour Ale. That night I tasted my first, (and only) Guezue, which led to someone exclaiming, "This is what you've made, Thommo, a Gueuze."

I wasn't tempted to enter it in a comp as a 17E to see if it would do any good in a different to intended class, but it was surprisingly similar to the commercial Gueuze example we had just been subjected to. (Perhaps a little more sour and puckering.)

Personally, I don't know how people can drink Gueuze, but if anyone wants 18 litres of an infected APA that tastes similar to my tastebuds, drop me a PM.


EDIT: (in response to Mah's post whilst I was typing this one.)

I'd have to agree that the BJCP is not perfect and probably will never be.

Having said that though, the experience I personally have gained from it I have found invaluable.

I am not (and will never be) the best beer judge on the planet. I won't even come close. I can barely tell the diffence between a Guezue and my own infected APA!!! However the course has exposed me to new styles I never would have tried, and caused me to evaluate the beer I drink with a new outlook and a different view. More importantly, and this is the real reason I signed up for it in the first place, it has improved my brewing.

There will always be a subjective aspect to the judging process. There's no way around this. I don't have the answer either, but in the absence of a competing standard, I'm happy to use the BJCP as a guide.


----------



## Thommo (3/11/06)

My fingers are starting to hurt from all this typing. How does PistolPatch do it?


----------



## MAH (3/11/06)

Thommo said:


> I'd have to agree that the BJCP is not perfect and probably will never be.
> 
> Having said that though, the experience I personally have gained from it I have found invaluable.
> 
> ...........the course has exposed me to new styles I never would have tried, and caused me to evaluate the beer I drink with a new outlook and a different view.




I agree that the BJCP journey is a valuable one, my gripe is that the exam, which is the formal accreditation component is IMHO crap. 

I think that competition committees can replicate much of the BJCP experience themself and they would have the confidence to know their standards for judges are being met. Effectively they would be self accreditating, which is exactly what the BJCP is (BJCP has never been independently evaluated). 

I know it would be a big burden for a competition committee to train their own judges, hence the appeal of a third party provider like BJCP.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Voosher (3/11/06)

I've been reluctant to wade into this whole debate primarily because those who associated with amateur comps work bloody hard and don't deserve to have their efforts disparaged. They are after all AMATEUR comps and nobody is obliged to enter.

But if one thing goes to the nub of my problems with comps this sums it up perfectly...



Thommo said:


> Having said that, let me explain how I came up with my Gueuze example in my earlier post. I brewed an APA that tasted OK out of the fermenter, but once bottled developed a sour, gut wrenching puckering taste to it. Took it along to the BJCP boys one night. They all agreed it absolutely sucked. Definately an infection. We tried to determine where the problem occurred, etc.
> 
> Two hours later, after the notes and discussion of the nights topic were out of the way, it was time to taste the style chosen for that night. 17. Sour Ale. That night I tasted my first, (and only) Guezue, which led to someone exclaiming, "This is what you've made, Thommo, a Gueuze."



Nothing personal Thommo and the fact that you didn't enter it into a comp is duly noted however, contrary to your colleague's observation you hadn't made a Gueuze. You'd made an APA which _tasted_ like a Gueuze.

Comps therefore become a test of a brewer's ability to taste their own beers and adjudicate them to determine into which class to enter them; not a test of a brewer's ability to brew a beer to style. A true _brewing_ comp would also have to monitor ingredients and techniques which is obviously impractical.

Amateur comps have their place and their organisers and officials deserve full credit for the time and effort they put into them. When I feel I can brew to style and well enough I may well enter one but I hope I don't ever taste my APA and decide to enter it as a Gueuze.

(Rarely activated) Rave mode /off.


Edit: Raving and accurate typing are incompatible activites.


----------



## warrenlw63 (3/11/06)

MAH said:


> Individuals receiving this rank are authorized to wear and use the Grand Master pin and rank" :lol: . The whole ranking system makes it sound like some weird lodge rather than a system of accreditation.



Rumour has it (this whole thing started on rumours) you also receive a nifty light sabre with pearl inlays. :lol: 

Warren -


----------



## Tseay (3/11/06)

Hey Thommo,

You didn't happen to give me a bottle of the infected APA along with good stuff. Thinking back to the taste I wonder. A note to judges at this weekend's comp, please bring your own body armour. There is a tunnel under the judging building that will help you escape from the enraged crowd outside. The HBG chaplain will be on hand to administer confession and the last rites. On the spot conversions are accepted.

Seriously, I am a member of a professional assocaition that is going through almost eaxctly the same debate. A formal acceditation process was introduced a couple of years ago and now it's coming under scruitiny. In the case I mention there is no practical part to the exam. Again, it's much better to be part of the solution than to be part of the problem. Judges do need to be trained where necessary and accredited. There probably needs to be a bigger allowance for accedited prior experience in the process. Also the exam format is daunting. No doubt about it and may not produce the corect outcome. But untill we have a bit of organisation behind brewers, it will be hard to move forward.


----------



## Borret (3/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> MAH said:
> 
> 
> > Individuals receiving this rank are authorized to wear and use the Grand Master pin and rank" :lol: . The whole ranking system makes it sound like some weird lodge rather than a system of accreditation.
> ...



Ni Ni Ni

These are they that hold the Grand Master rank.... and only drink from the Holy Grail..




Brent


----------



## Thommo (3/11/06)

Voosher said:


> Thommo said:
> 
> 
> > Having said that, let me explain how I came up with my Gueuze example in my earlier post. I brewed an APA that tasted OK out of the fermenter, but once bottled developed a sour, gut wrenching puckering taste to it. Took it along to the BJCP boys one night. They all agreed it absolutely sucked. Definately an infection. We tried to determine where the problem occurred, etc.
> ...



Voosher,

rest assured the comment was tongue in cheek, and everyone present took it this way. No one believed for a second that I had made a gueuze, no matter the similarities it was still nothing more than an infected APA.

Sorry for the misleading quote; I thought this translated well enough as typed. I will have to learn to use  these things more often.

I guess it comes down to what you want out of the comp. If you're using them to improve your beers and techniques, there's no way you'd even consider doing what you suggested. If you believe your APA would do better as an IPA (or should I say AIPA??? - that's a whole other issue) then I guess there is nothing from stopping you from doing this. Some people will think you are only cheating yourself. (And I guess someone else if you take out his rightful prize.) Others may think there is nothing wrong with this. Who am I to decide that they are going about it the wrong way, even if it's not something I would do personally?

Nothings perfect. I guess it's down to the individual. We each have our own feelings, beliefs, morals, religions, and favourite beers. There will never be a perfect fit for all involved.

Sorry for ranting all day on this. (I haven't got much work done today, let me tell you.) All this ranting is making me thirsty. Can't wait for 5 o'clock. I've got a cold so I'm going home to cook up a mean mutha of a Chilli, and then wash it down with a few German Pilsners. (It was supposed to be a Bohemian) :blink: 

Thommo.


----------



## Thommo (3/11/06)

Borret said:


> warrenlw63 said:
> 
> 
> > MAH said:
> ...



And to become one of them you must give them...........A SHRUBBERY


----------



## Kai (3/11/06)

bugwan said:


> I wonder if entering a re-badged or dodgy wine would be picked up in a similar competition?



Maybe, but even in beer I don't think it seems to be a big problem. Homebrewers seem to be reasonably honest folk.



johnno said:


> So a homebrewer makes a beer and it turns out that it is not quite right.
> 
> They think there may be something wrong with it but are not quite sure. Probably due to the fact that they brewer is a young brewer and does not have much experience eg me.
> 
> ...



There's nothing wrong with that at all, it's one of the reasons we have home brew competitions. However, that wasn't what the original comment was about. The line that spawned the infection talk was:



dr K said:


> It is bad form to deliberately enter a bad beer, especially if you know it to be infected. It screws the judges palates and may damage another brewers chances.



There's a difference between wanting feedback on a beer that may or may not be infected (after all, an inexperienced brewer might now know) and entering a beer that is infected enough to heavily affect the flavour. Remember, every beer is infected it's just the extent that's important... I've had visibily infected beers that had no trace of infection on the flavour.



MAH said:


> I know this is going to upset those who have put time and effort into gaining their BJCP qualifications and as I understand it, the process of studying for the exam is highly worthwile and enlightening, but you don't need BJCP to go through the process of tasting and learning about beer.



That's about the only line I agree with 100% - you don't need BJCP to go through the process of learning about beer. Maybe the qualifications ought to involve more emphasis on the sensory side, but I'm sure that would also increase the cost and difficulty of the exam quite a lot. I'm ambivalent over whether that is necessary or not, though.

Beyond that, I see two threads - dislike of the BJCP guidelines and dislike of the examination method. Having spent the last few years taking them, I know you can pass exams by rote learning the week (or night) before. However, you never get a good grade that way. To do that you need to _know_ what you're writing about, although that is somewhat dependent on the structure and quality of the exam.

I also still don't quite grasp what the shortcoming is with the BJCP guidelines either. I think revisionist is a bit harsh - styles aren't cast in stone, new ones like american brown are acceptable if enough similar examples are in production. Irish red, I don't know about so much though. I do have bones of contention with how vague some of the guidelines are, especially some of the american ones, but when it comes down to it (and I hate this statement as much as I love using it) they're only guidelines. And, they're the best and most comprehensive guidelines available too.

Can you brew or run a comp without them, and without judging accreditation? Absolutely. It's definitely not a waste of time to have either, though. The guidelines are an invaluable source of information to new brewers - I have brewed many successful examples of styles right off the bat purely by reading the style guidelines and formulating a recipe to suit. And with regards to accreditation, all of us here who have been studying towards the BJCP exam have learned a huge amount just from our study, something none of us would have done without this programme.


----------



## Voosher (3/11/06)

Thommo said:


> Voosher,
> 
> rest assured the comment was tongue in cheek, and everyone present took it this way. No one believed for a second that I had made a gueuze, no matter the similarities it was still nothing more than an infected APA.
> 
> ...



All good. Probably more me being a little oversensitive.  
And you're not ranting as far as I'm concerned. I think this has been a vibrant and interesting thread.
I think we're singing from similar hymn sheets anyway 'cos I pretty much agree with the rest of it as well.

Especially this...


Thommo said:


> Can't wait for 5 o'clock.



And as I can't wait it's Beer Hour Now.
Enjoy your BoGermans and chilli.
Cheers.
:chug:


----------



## MAH (3/11/06)

Kai said:


> Having spent the last few years taking them, I know you can pass exams by rote learning the week (or night) before. However, you never get a good grade that way. To do that you need to _know_ what you're writing about, although that is somewhat dependent on the structure and quality of the exam.



Very true, but you don't need a high pass to become BJCP accredited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need a minimum of 60% to be accredited.



Kai said:


> I also still don't quite grasp what the shortcoming is with the BJCP guidelines either...... And, they're the best and most comprehensive guidelines available too.



Again, very true, which is the sad thing because I still believe they need to be viewed with a critical eye. They would make a great starting point for a competition committee to adapt and enhance. I also accept your point that they're useful for new brewers to help with recipe formulation. But again I would say that in this regard they're just a good starting point. Take the basics from the guidelines, read more and drink more widely to enhance your own appreciation of the particular style.



Kai said:


> And with regards to accreditation, all of us here who have been studying towards the BJCP exam have learned a huge amount just from our study, something none of us would have done without this programme.



Although I'm very critical of the BJCP, I openly admit that this is the real benefit of the BJCP. BJCP is accesible and structured and in this regard it's a useful tool, but one that could be replicated by other means.

I suppose my original comment that the BJCP is bollocks is a tad harsh. There are definitely elements that are laudable. The thing that gives me jip, is that the BJCP accreditation is often held out as the panacea for competition problems. If it was not treated as an end point, but as a good place to start and adapt then I would be less critical.

Is it possible to develop a better alternative to BJCP? Yep! Can I be arsed to develop a better alterantive? Nope!

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Kai (3/11/06)

MAH said:


> Very true, but you don't need a high pass to become BJCP accredited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need a minimum of 60% to be accredited.



60% gets you 'recognised' status, 70% and five experience points gets you 'certified'. But yes, min 60% to be accredited. As you work up the rankings you need progressively more judging experience points which would help your ability in and of itself. Unless you judge poorly over and over, of course.



> Again, very true, which is the sad thing because I still believe they need to be viewed with a critical eye. They would make a great starting point for a competition committee to adapt and enhance. I also accept your point that they're useful for new brewers to help with recipe formulation. But again I would say that in this regard they're just a good starting point. Take the basics from the guidelines, read more and drink more widely to enhance your own appreciation of the particular style.



Agreed, they're a great starting point. They'd be very limiting if you used them as boundaries, but it would take a long time to reach that limit.



> Although I'm very critical of the BJCP, I openly admit that this is the real benefit of the BJCP. BJCP is accesible and structured and in this regard it's a useful tool, but one that could be replicated by other means.
> 
> I suppose my original comment that the BJCP is bollocks is a tad harsh. There are definitely elements that are laudable. The thing that gives me jip, is that the BJCP accreditation is often held out as the panacea for competition problems. If it was not treated as an end point, but as a good place to start and adapt then I would be less critical.
> 
> ...



I don't think I'd even be able to develop a better alternative, but I definitely couldn't be arsed either. BJCP definitely isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's a good foundation. It's not, in keeping with the off-topic posts in this thread, the holy grail. On that it seems we both agree.


----------



## dr K (3/11/06)

I have no problem with those who feel that the BJCP is a load of twaddle, that anyone can pass it, that is worth nothing. I have heard it all before and worse.
I have had to deal with people, and unfortunately influential people who, quite frankly act like xenophobes...they see a problem with this "Foreign" system being foisted apon us and worse us having to send money "overseas".

At the outset I stated


> Just because someone has BJCP training and even recognition does not mean that they are a great judge.
> It does mean, however, that their skills and knowledge have been tested and assessed by recognised and highly experienced peers and that they have been acknowleged.



Rant against the BJCP all you like I guess, but do not then turn around to me and tell me that you are a judge for I will ask you ..how?. 
The BJCP progam in Australia has it origins over 2 years ago , the first study groups (Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Newcastle ) started early 2005, and there have been another lot go through this year.
From all of this we now increased our Certified list in Australia from 1 in 2004 to four in 2006, with a maximum of three more possibly by the end of 2006.
Not a lot for a parrot exam is it??

The BJCP is a constantly evolving organisation, an organisation cannot evolve without discussion and comment thus I have no problem with anti-BJCP crowd, they actually make, in their own way, a positive contribution.

kurtz


----------



## goatherder (3/11/06)

With apologies to Churchill, BJCP is the worst beer judging system we know, except for all of the others.

Have a think about what BJCP actually achieves. It takes the massively complex multidimensional spectrum of beer types and slots them into bins for classification. Then it trains human judges to evaluate these beers based on SUBJECTIVE sensory perception. And it does a pretty reasonable job. Amazing.

Case in point is a Berliner Weisse beating out all comers, including IPAs and Old Ales, to win BOS at the NSW comp. I feel this is a ringing endorsement for the judge training and the style classification of the BJCP.

The BJCP provides a structured progression for beer judges. Sure, it might be a bit wanky but it provides a judge with an education platform which they can build on with experience for their whole life. Seeing some of the BJCP trained first-time judges at NSW gave me a lot of confidence that this is a good thing.

It is also important to understand that the BJCP has limitations and that the BCJP style guidelines do not fully represent the entire beer spectrum. Styles like gose, czech dark lager, aussie sparkling ale, zwickel and the sorghum beers of south africa aren't BJCP styles. Maybe they should be, but on the other hand maybe the line needs to be drawn somewhere for the purposes of running a comp.

I think the debate needs to continue and Aussie HBers need to be part of the debate. If we are not a part of the BJCP then we don't get to be part of the debate.


----------



## browndog (3/11/06)

> Rumour has it (this whole thing started on rumours) you also receive a nifty light sabre with pearl inlays.
> 
> Warren -



Bahahahaha........ surely the best post so far.

Seriously though, I have been thinking about joining a brew club, but after reading this thread I'm not sure if it is worth bothering about (aside from the social aspect)


cheers

Browndog


----------



## Screwtop (3/11/06)

browndog said:


> > Rumour has it (this whole thing started on rumours) you also receive a nifty light sabre with pearl inlays.
> >
> > Warren -
> 
> ...




I'm with you Browndog. 

If these brewers feel so strongly about judging then the obvious positive response from them would be to volunteer as judges for comps or sit a BJCP exam. Obviously to consider oneself to be in a position capable of criticising judges then these learned brewers may wish to volunteer to judge beers privately, this would obviously be of great assistance to many brewers wanting feedback on a beer that may or may not be infected and save wasting the time of competent judges. Maybe there could be some really simple qualification/examination to qualify these pull-through's as certified detectors of infected brew, they could even be entitled to hang a shingle announcing such accreditation. I have a few possibly infected brews that I would sincerely like to waste their time with. 

The one amusing aspect of this whole masturbate to me is that the comps will go on, as will BJCP judging. What will the knockers do with a fantastic beer, should they eventually brew one, they'll be so proud of their creation, possibly they'll secretly enter it into a comp, but because we have all read this thread they will NEVER LIVE IT DOWN. 

This whole thread belongs in the WALOC file.


----------



## Stuster (3/11/06)

browndog said:


> Seriously though, I have been thinking about joining a brew club, but after reading this thread I'm not sure if it is worth bothering about (aside from the social aspect)



I hope not, browndog. Of course, the social aspect is great.  But surely none of this has made you think that going to a brew club is a bad idea. You can learn about heaps of different things, styles and comps being only two of many. I have a little something planned for our club meeting tomorrow which (I hope :unsure: ) will be fun, educational ( :lol: ) and has absolutely nothing to do with styles or comps. Last time we did a group brew that was against all number of OH&S regulations but was a challenge for those who did the work and something for the onlookers to be amused by. And seven cubes of wort were taken home and fermented (or soon will be). :chug:


----------



## homebrewworld.com (3/11/06)

OK my go  
How bout you do the BJCP exam............ then bash the crap out of it!
Then enter a comp that isnt BJCP...........
Smell the roses.....


----------



## Paleman (3/11/06)

Off on a tangent a touch. In this day and age of homebrewing, how many brews are actually infected ?

Theres not so good tasting beer. And theres great tasting beer ( and all in between ). But i doubt that there are many truely infected beers. 

So do judges count a kit and kilo as an infected beer ?

IMHO. Home made/brewed beers are like making cakes. You have your supermarket packet cakes, then you have your super homemade Cream Tortes ( Cakes). Even the cream comes from the cow out the back. Neither cakes have gone off. And makers of both are happy with what they do.

Food/Beer for thought.


----------



## goatherder (3/11/06)

Paleman said:


> Off on a tangent a touch. In this day and age of homebrewing, how many brews are actually infected ?
> 
> Theres not so good tasting beer. And theres great tasting beer ( and all in between ). But i doubt that there are many truely infected beers.
> 
> ...




Paleman, 

I was a steward at the NSW comp. I worked a couple of tables totalling about 25 beers and I tasted them all. According to the judges, 2 or 3 were infected. One of these was very noticable to a novice like me. It was great experience for me to taste these beers and be told what the problem was.

So infected beers do turn up in comps and I consider three out of 25, if this is representative of comps, to be a reasonably high incidence.

As for K&K beers, the judges had no idea what was K&K and what wasn't. I was steward, so I was cracking the bottles and pouring the beers and I had no idea. They just see a glass of beer with a number and style associated with it.

As for detecting K&K beers, the judges seemed to be more confident picking mash beers. They seemed to associate chill haze with mash beers - there were a couple of comments along these lines. It's impossible to say whether they were correct or not, I just found it an interesting association.

Turning to the quality of the beers, a couple were outstanding, about 10 or so were very nice clean drinkable beers with minor style faults, another 6ish were pretty average and the rest had pretty significant flaws.

What stood out to me about the bottom half of the beers was that the major flaws were from ignoring the basics of brewing. They were infected, oxidised, had noticeable diacetyl or were underattenuated, amongst other things. Adequate sanitation, strong healthy fermentation, temp control, oxygen-free transfer were the weak points in the brewers process for these beers. Simple, basic stuff.

If a beer was clean, well fermented and properly handled, and entered in the correct style, then it would score well, probably above 30. Mash, extract or K&K doesn't make any difference here I reckon.

GH


----------



## Paleman (3/11/06)

Paleman said:


> goatherder said:
> 
> 
> > Paleman said:
> ...


----------



## bigfridge (3/11/06)

goatherder said:


> The BJCP provides a structured progression for beer judges. Sure, it might be a bit wanky but it provides a judge with an education platform which they can build on with experience for their whole life. Seeing some of the BJCP trained first-time judges at NSW gave me a lot of confidence that this is a good thing.




I don't feel that I can add much to the full range of comments made so far, but Goatherder made a very good point. 

I was fortunate to lead the 7 'BJCP trained first-time judges at NSW'. We spent about 40 hours tasting and discussing beer together with practising all aspects of the competition situation. Some of them drove 1-3 hours to get to our monthly meeting and all of them paid more than $200 each to cover the cost of the beers and the exam.

It was not due to my participation but their dedication that they felt prepared for the comp and (perhaps less so) the exam the next day.

All that I can say is that I doubt that any one of us would have spent that amout of time or effort focussed on the nuances of beer styles if it wasn't for the structure of the BJCP exam.

On the matter of the exam itself, I am an educator so know all the arguments against the current structure. But they are changing and the introduction of multiple choice questions and 'fill in the blanks' that we saw this year is a step in the right direction.

Having said all this, I have taken the exam on two occasions now and find it one of the most difficult that I have ever done - so much needs to be said, so little time. But it certainly was much easier the second time around.

HTH

David


----------



## Weizguy (3/11/06)

Let me be the voice of dissent, on both sides of this argument.

Yep, I think there are problems with the BJCP exam, and that I wonder what the Inner workings and levels of judge-wankeriness, has to do with tasting beer.

I also have an opinion about our National competition. I'm thinkiing that a reasonable body would include beer styles that Aussies are brewing and enjoying. I brewed the Berliner for the NSW Xmas in July case, for brewers to enjoy; or at least become familiar with an example of the style.
It's not just me that brews a Berliner weisse. I have purchased one at Redoak (no affiliation). IMHO, mine was better, and more sour (humble, I said). Surely, a commercial example being available in the country must bring a beer into consideration for a style description in the National comp.

Anyway, I declare last drinks, and retire.

Thanks for the tutelage, David, and thanks for your support with the Berliner style.

Seth goooooooone


----------



## Brewtus (4/11/06)

I can't help but to have my 2 cents worth. I know nothing of the BJCP exam or beer judging but I have done ITIL (IT wanky stuff) Prince 2 (project management wanky stuff) and been on Cisco (wanky router stuff) Micro soft and Novell (wanky computer stuff) course that lead to exams. In all cases when you do the exam they say there is the right way, the wong way and the Cisco way. Just because you would do it at work/home/somewhere else one way does not mean that it is the correct answer for the exam. The exams are designed not to see how well you can do something or if you can rote learn but to see if you a dedicated enough and listen enough to pass their exam. All the instructors I have had tell you there is many ways to get a good outcome in real life but you need to pass the exam to get the credability, then you can start making up the rules. If you ran every project with 'prince 2' you would drown in paperwork but if you know all the steps, you know where to take clever short cuts and where to spend the real effort. Passing Prince 2 doesn't make you a project manager but if you are a half decent PM then prince 2 makes sense and is much easier to follow and pass the exam. Studying these courses/fields give you a standard language and common base to start from and if you talk to another qualified person, even though others may think you are a complete tosser, you both understand exactly what the other means.

This BJCP exam sounds much the same. If you have the right passion you will do it and at the end see its faults but be able to get even better. You can still know a lot about beer and never go anywhere near an exam. At least those who do the exam have expressed their passion in a way that suits them and will have a common language and understanding of beer and will know all the correct wanky terms and thus be able to know exactly what the other guys mean. Defining styles etc is all part of it.

Hope that if you get this far into my rave you will at least understand the value of stuff like BJCP and see that even if that are only 50% right they are still 50% better than nothing.


----------



## Trough Lolly (4/11/06)

Thommo said:


> Just want to clear something up.
> 
> IMO, there is nothing wrong with entering an infected or far from perfect beer into a comp for an honest evaluation. It's a good way to get tips on how to improve a beer or to identify how a fault or infection happened. Comps aren't all about the bling and the glamour, they serve another helpful purpose that can sometimes be overlooked.
> <snip>



:blink: 
I beg to differ on this...Comps are not workshops for infected brews. Spare a thought of the judges who have to carefully score one or more flights of beer over one or more days. As much fun as it sounds, there's a fair bit of work involved. The last thing a judge needs is an infected beer and a screwed palate.

I would never knowingly submit an infected beer into any comp - that, IMHO, is bad form. If you have a beer AND you know it's infected, don't put it into a comp....get thee to a fellow brewer or go to a club meeting and have a chat with other experienced brewers who may be prepared to taste your beer and give you guidance on where you may have gone wrong. At least the person you seek info from in this case knows what's coming and has a choice...

If you have a beer that isn't quite to style then that's a different matter. But for goodness sake, mindlessly tossing infected beers into competitions is wrong and if the judge ever found out who submitted the entry, and that person knew it was infected when they submitted it, well, I'd say the judge would have every right to give that person a bollocking. :angry: 

TL <flamesuit on>


----------



## Trough Lolly (4/11/06)

Paleman said:


> Off on a tangent a touch. In this day and age of homebrewing, how many brews are actually infected ?


How long's a piece of string? One would hope that with more sanitising and cleaning products available than ever before, and more readily accessible info sources such as this forum at the home brewers disposal, we should hope that infected beers are on the decline, but then again the proportion may be unchanged as more and more people try their hand at brewing...



Paleman said:


> Theres not so good tasting beer. And theres great tasting beer ( and all in between ). But i doubt that there are many truely infected beers.


The judges can sort out the quality of the beer produced, and yes, it's a good opportunity to get some valua ble feedback on your beer. You may discover that you don't use enough hops, or fresh extract or you have a flaw in your process that results in oxidised / cardboard flavours coming out in all your entries - and FWIW, I don't consider oxidised beer to be infected, just poorly handled. I don't have any stats to back me up but I suspect that the vast majority of entries at state and national comps are not infected - but that said, my beef is with those who know they have an infected beer and submit it anyway to see what's wrong with it, which IMHO is a waste of a judges time and palate - see my earlier rant!



Paleman said:


> So do judges count a kit and kilo as an infected beer ?


Jeez, I hoped you had your protective clothing on when you typed that line! h34r: 
Of course K&K is not classed as infected beer and any fool making that assertion in a comp should go home and stop wasting other brewers time and effort. It wasn't all that long ago that extract and kit based beers were regularly bringing home the medals from top flight brewing competitions... When you think about it, any brewer who medals with kit based beer deserves a pat on the back for outdoing all grain based competitors.

Cheers,
TL


----------



## johnno (4/11/06)

So it is definately NOT good form to enter a brew that you know is foul infected.

But it is ok to enter something that is not quite right? Maybe a slight infection as such?

Is this where we are up to?

cheers
johnno


----------



## BrissyBrew (4/11/06)

I am interesting in improving my skills and knowledge so the BJCP certification program is attractive to me. I acknowledge that no system is perfect. The fact that this thread is so lively leads me to believe that in 5 years from now BJCP comps will dominate the Australian amateur brewing comps. Why uniformity. Will the BJCP still look the same in 5 years time, no idea.

As far as tasting goes. Expert sensory panels are evaluated. For taste stick out your tongue, the count and analyse the distribute of taste buds, you only want the top 5% of the population which are genetically super tasters. Next the important, costly and time consuming olfactory tests, adaptation and saturation sometimes means you need subjects to come back over a couple of days. Then after that you do some evaluations of see how easy it is to train certain subjects, look for consistency and threshold levels. It has been many years since I have study sensory perception but the short of it is some people have it some people don’t. 

However training and standardisation of procedures has benefits for all.


----------



## MAH (7/11/06)

dr K said:


> Rant against the BJCP all you like I guess, but do not then turn around to me and tell me that you are a judge for I will ask you ..how?.



By completing the MAH Advanced Accreditation Program in International Beer Judging  . 

As I have said, BJCP is a self accrediting organisation. They don't have a set of industry standards that they have to work to, such as the Australian Qualifications Framework for post secondary eduction in Oz, or a quality auditor like the Australian Universities Quality Agency, which is an independent body that audits all Oz universities against the services they claim to provide. Your question of how are you a beer judge is equally valid for anyone who sits the BJCP. Just because BJCP claim to X doesn't mean it's true. How do they know they are producing good beer judges? What are they benchmarking against?

Yes there is a better chance that a BJCP certified judge will be better than a non-certified BJCP judge, but there is nothing to prove this. It is only an assumption.

Both ECU and Ballarat Uni offer truly accredited programs in brewing with beer evaluation components. Could graduates of such programs recognised by the Australian Qualifications Framework question the validity of BJCP accredited judges? In the context of recognisable qualifications, probably yes.

My point is simple, BJCP is untested and as such deserves to be viewed with a critical eye. It's hard to claim the high ground with an unrecognised qualification. An in-house training scheme run by a competition committee would have just as much validity. 

Cheers
MAH


----------



## bigfridge (7/11/06)

MAH said:


> My point is simple, BJCP is untested and as such deserves to be viewed with a critical eye. It's hard to claim the high ground with an unrecognised qualification. An in-house training scheme run by a competition committee would have just as much validity.
> 
> Cheers
> MAH



Two possible points of reference - the BJCP is recognised by the AHA and MCAB for running America's peak amature comps and the Australian International Beer awards uses the BJCP style guidlines.

I don't think that your in-house training scheme will get the same level of recognition.

David


----------



## MAH (7/11/06)

bigfridge said:


> MAH said:
> 
> 
> > My point is simple, BJCP is untested and as such deserves to be viewed with a critical eye. It's hard to claim the high ground with an unrecognised qualification. An in-house training scheme run by a competition committee would have just as much validity.
> ...



No it wouldn't have the same level of recognition but it would have the same level of validity, as both are untested. Neither would be independently verified that they actually produce beer judges with the ability to critically analyse beers. This is the big question mark that hangs over the BJCP, particularly when you consider the accrediting exam only has 30% of it's marks given to sensory perception testing and you only have to taste 4 beers, with the emphasis is on a written exam.

Further it's not surprising that AHA recognise the BJCP, they were one of the founders and other significant users have most likley adopted it due to it's accessability. But you can't get away from the point that BJCP is an untested self accrediting organisation. Some one has already mentioned hanging a shingle on the door and BJCP is open to this criticism.

I'll say it agin, BJCP has a lot going for it, but it also has a lot of negatives, not least of which is that it can't point to any real authorities that recognise it, other than interest groups like AHA. And I suppose this gets to the heart of the issue. You're not going to get anything other than interest groups organising things like training programs for HB judges because it's just amatuers (meaning non-professional, not crappy) competing against each other. So claiming things like being qualified under interest group X does little for increasing your credibility IMHO. 

HB comps are not for cattle stations, they're for bragging rights. It's only because people get OTT about such things that we get psudeo qualifications and a false sense of the importance of it all. It's supposed to be just a bit of fun.....isn't it?

Cheers
MAH


----------



## mikem108 (7/11/06)

yeah fun is what its all about, isn't that why we homebrew?
I think you would only need intensive training if you were judging a flight of very good beers that were very close, in general though you need to be able to identify faults to give feedback,because mostly the good beers in a comp really stand out.
Unless there is some kind of spectometer that can annalyse a beer scientifically for stylistic departures and faults we are stuck with human senses and opinion.


----------



## Steve Lacey (7/11/06)

MAH said:


> HB comps are not for cattle stations, they're for bragging rights. It's only because people get OTT about such things that we get psudeo qualifications and a false sense of the importance of it all. It's supposed to be just a bit of fun.....isn't it?



MAH, I find a couple of things in here worth commenting on. On the one hand, earlier you were criticizing the BJCP because it does not have some overriding, autonomous, independent, professional body to certify its validity, yet you also say that comps are just for a bit of fun and bragging rights and people shouldn't get so uptight about qualifications. Surely these two positions are not entirely consistent?

I regard the BJCP as simply an attempt at a process whereby a brewer who enters a comp can know that the judges have not been plucked off the street; that they have some level of training. Yes, your club/mentor based process can produce just as good a judge, but with what scrutibility? At least the BJCP process is transparent and you know the minimum level of knowledge/experience that a BJCP certified judge must have. That's minimum level. Without this, poor old comp organizers are continually getting hammered because the "process is too subjective" and the judges "don't know their arse from their elbow", etc, etc. -- despite the fact that it is all just for a bit of fun and bragging rights. So what do organizers do to try and address these criticisms? How about implementing a bit of a system that can provide some rigour and quality assurance? So they do that, and then the process is criticized for not being robust enough...I mean, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think I would dispute your assertion that "An in-house training scheme run by a competition committee would have just as much validity." I mean, it might well be just as good, but how does it have as much validity? Your claim that the BJCP is not valid also stands questioning. The validity of the BJCP comes from the fact that it was developed for a very large body of enthusiastic members (ever read the HBD?), has been applied and refined over many years, and its procedures and standards are widely disseminated and open to scrutiny, as you have done. Can you say the same of the in-house training scheme? Sure the BJCP can be improved. But is that a reason to reject it out of hand?

The other point I'd like to make is this, and it is purely speculative, but you had a shot at the BJCP titles like Grand Master or whatever they are and then say in the quote above that people get OTT about pseudo-qualifications. But has it occurred to anybody that these grand-sounding BJCP senior titles are in fact tongue-in-cheek? And they say Americans have no sense of irony! These guys are home brewers, remember, and are less inclined than most to take themselves seriously (I may be wrong on this, but it is my deep suspicion that the titles are a bit of a piss-take). Surely the intent of having these classifications is simply to provide the very thing you say the BJCP basic certification doesn't, i.e, a mechanism for recognizing superior levels of practical experience and peer-recognized expertise in beer evaluation. It's not for cattle sattions, but comps and judging are still reasonably important aspects of the hobby for a lot of people. And some people have a lot of experience and are a lot better at judging and sensory evaluation than others. Is it so wrong to try to implement a mechanism for peer-recognition of that?

Remember, its not for cattle stations, all it is doing is providing some kind of framework for those within the hobby to have the confidence that if a comp is labelled "BJCP certified" that a certain level of discipline and quality control will be undertaken. I for one would prefer to be a part of comps run under BJCP guidelines and with BJCP-certified judges than those without. Period. The sad reality is that outside the US I think this is the exception rather than the rule, and what you in fact do is place your faith in the comp having enough competent judges for your entries to get a fair chance of a good evaluation.

In short, I find your criticism that the BJCP is not serious enough (can't be validated) to be completely at odds with your claim that comps are all just for a bit of fun and bragging rights. And please understand, I have no personal hangups about any of this, comps are not even all that important to me and my participation in the hobby. I am just looking at your lines of reasoning. But if I have mis-represented your position in any way, MAH, I am happy to be stood corrected.

Regards
Steve


----------



## MAH (8/11/06)

Steve Lacey said:


> But if I have mis-represented your position in any way, MAH, I am happy to be stood corrected.



Hi Steve

Nope you haven't misrpresented what I have said. I've made two points. A) I don't think the high ground can be claimed based on BJCP accreditation, because IMHO the actual accreditation component, the exam, is not a good basis for determining an individual's ability to assess the quality of beer. B) Beer comps seem to be taken too seriously, it's just a hobby.

Now I don't see these points of view as mutually exclusive. It's because people are OTT about comps that we see people insisting that we have to go down this path of accreditation. Well if you are going to put yourself out their as accredited then it should be a valid process. But we can also go one step further back and question whether it's even needed.

One more time, I'll give praise where it's due and say that the journey of gaining BJCP accreditation is a worthy one. The actual exam and the shingle, I personaly don't give much credit to, but the journey taken, the effort made to go and try a wide variety of beers and expand an individual's knowledge, well a big thumbs ups. 

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Steve Lacey (8/11/06)

MAH, I was relieved to see you didn't take my comments personally. Happens so easily on forums when one attempts to discuss ideas and opinions. Generally I am not an argumentative fellow and definitely don't go out of my way to make trouble, so it is good we can have a civil conversation about this.



MAH said:


> Nope you haven't misrpresented what I have said. I've made two points. A) I don't think the high ground can be claimed based on BJCP accreditation, because IMHO the actual accreditation component, the exam, is not a good basis for determining an individual's ability to assess the quality of beer.



I agree that it is not a panacea and that there is no justification for taking any high and mighty position about having certification or following the comp guidelines. What I think it does more than anything else is provide a referent to a whole framework of meaning such that once you say the words "the comp follows BJCP format and every panel will have at least one BJCP certified judge" then prospective entrants can understand what that means, and so it is an efficient way of communicating the comp structure and that it has some level of competency. Otherwise it is a comp-by-comp process of carefully reading the classes and style guidelines etc and wondering whether the judges are as qualified as the bozo mentioned on this thread. So, this is not to say BJCP has any greater authority other than the sheer numbers of amateur brewing enthusiasts involved in honing it over the years, but it does provide some form of standard, and having been involved in comp organizing in Australia in the late 1990s and 2000, I can only say that that is a good thing.



> B) Beer comps seem to be taken too seriously, it's just a hobby.



Yes, I couldn't agree more. The sad fact is that as soon as you put the word "competition" into anything, it seems to bring out the worst in some people. I'm afraid I am talking about competitors here (i.e., not all, just a noisy minority who spoil it for others) and inevitably forces organizers into being increasingly transparent and having to guard themselves against attacks from all kinds of angles -- as soon as egos are involved, blech, you are going to get people taking it too seriously and being precious about the results and process. I'm sure that with the size of the hobby in the States, which was built on the philosophy of Charlie Papazian's RDWHAHB, it was this kind of thing, plus the desire to get away from re-inventing the wheel for every comp, that led to the BJCP standardization approach. So, really, I see BJCP as a form of inferring some kind of credibility (albeit with the limitations you point out) while cutting down the work of organizers and providing a sound basis for comparing and assessing beers.



> Well if you are going to put yourself out their as accredited then it should be a valid process.



I'm sure this is a legitimate point. But it's one I'd like to see addressed to the BJCP Grand Privy (or whatever the overseeing body is called). As in, I'm sure they would vigorously defend their process and claim that it is valid, or perhaps, if you have some very concrete ideas on what they could do to improve the validity, perhaps they would listen, or perhaps they could assure you that such steps are unnecessary, I don't know. Wouldn't it be better, though, to build on this very substantial base and improve what we have rather than focus on what it is not and ditch it to start something anew? Which brings us to...



> But we can also go one step further back and question whether it's even needed.



True. To a large extent though, this is exactly the conversation and process that has taken place within and by many comp organizers in Australia since, as I mentioned, dating back at least 8 years or so. Trying to hold a national comp with that comp and every state comp having different sets of classes and guidelines was a nightmare -- even given that you were just trying to do it for a bit of fun. Judging standards were very inconsistent within and between comps. This is an on-going but, it would seem, ever-diminishing problem (not because of BJCP but because of the growth in the hobby and better flow of informaton on forums like this). Perhaps you haven't been part of the conversation, but I can assure you it has taken place. Definitely something was needed for the reasons I outlined above in answer to your point B), and given that BJCP already exists, and given the small size of the hobby in Australia, and given that there is enough universality with beer styles to make it mostly as applicable here as anywhere...people gravitated towards adopting BJCP guidelines. The judge certification proces was a natural follower I suppose. So, yes, ask the question by all means, but it is the community of competition organizers, as nebulous as that sounds, that are best positioned to decide this. 



> One more time, I'll give praise where it's due and say that the journey of gaining BJCP accreditation is a worthy one. The actual exam and the shingle, I personaly don't give much credit to, but the journey taken, the effort made to go and try a wide variety of beers and expand an individual's knowledge, well a big thumbs ups.



Then it would seem your main problem is with the exam format. So let's acknowledge everything that the BJCP program is, and perhaps raise the exam format issues with the US administrators and find out what they have to say about it. Or have some involved in administering the program in Oz respond to your specific criticisms (note, I am not qualified to speak about that). BTW, I agree that the shingle should be regarded for exactly what it is: verification that you have been through the aove-mentioned worthy process and thus are assured of having the basic knowledge required to judge a homebrew competition. It doesn't necessarily make you an expert or necessarily superior to others who have acquired their credentials through a less formal process.

For me, it boils down to this: if you are going to have competitions, some kind of standardization and transparency and quality assurance is highly desirable. At the moment, the options for that are BJCP and ...

I guess that's about all I have to say. It' been a pleasure discussing the topic. Shame it was done here and not over a :beer: 

Steve
Disclaimer for those who do not know me: I have no affiiliation or vested interest in the BJCP or AHA or anything related to them. I've just been involved in a few comps in the past.


----------



## DJR (13/11/06)

I am going to chime in here on discrepancies in the judging process. This is for the AABC vs the other competitions that were run. Now i could have put this into the AABC results thread but it's better not to cloud it.

The specific example is the Pale Ale category. Now the BJCP defines three classes here, that AABA/vicbrew decided to lump into one - Amber Hybrid (including Steam/CC), American Pale Ale, India Pale Ale and Australian Pale Ale.

Now, were these categories separate i would have picked up 2nd place as an APA, but anyway, the specifics here are how different the scores are. This is a list of the beers and their scores at AABC compared with the state comp they qualified in.

1. Asher's APA. 122 AABC, at SABSOSA 111.9
2. Ross M - IPA - 105.5 AABC - ??? at ACT comp
3. Trent Maier - AIPA - 111 AABC, 102.5 NSW
4. Tony W IPA - 87.5 AABC, 119 Vicbrew
5. Ben S APA - 84.5 AABC, 106.5 NSW
=6. Rick A APA - 83 AABC, 107.5 NSW
=6. ? - Steam Beer - 83 AABC, 122 Vicbrew

Notice how different the scores are? If this is SERIOUSLY the judging standard that we are going to expect, with as much as a 39 point difference, what is the point of entering at all? You might as well throw darts at a board to decide the winner.

I shudder to think of what would happen if Ashley H had entered his APA that qualified at SABSOSA!


----------



## shotduck (13/11/06)

I think what you just said is the root of the problem here. I like the idea of the BJCP, as it allows for a standardised method of judging under a standardised set of guidelines. Lets face it... judging Australian Pale Ales next to India Pale Ales is, quite simply, absurd. I guess it is the extremely ordered, black and white life that I live, but I have yet to see a competition alternative to the BJCP that I think holds a candle to it, and therefore refuse to bother entering a competition that does not at least structure their categories off the BJCP (it need not have the full 23 categories, but blending all pale ales together into the one category, as I have already said, is pitifull and smacks of mediocrity).

Cheers,
TSD (hastily dons flame-suit)


----------



## /// (13/11/06)

We tried as best to keep both camps happy in NSW (esp. with the wide adoption by NSW brewers of the exams) and were shot like ducks for doing this.

Seems there no tolerance for updating or change...

Scotty


----------



## bigfridge (13/11/06)

The Shot Duck said:


> I think what you just said is the root of the problem here. I like the idea of the BJCP, as it allows for a standardised method of judging under a standardised set of guidelines. Lets face it... judging Australian Pale Ales next to India Pale Ales is, quite simply, absurd. I guess it is the extremely ordered, black and white life that I live, but I have yet to see a competition alternative to the BJCP that I think holds a candle to it, and therefore refuse to bother entering a competition that does not at least structure their categories off the BJCP (it need not have the full 23 categories, but blending all pale ales together into the one category, as I have already said, is pitifull and smacks of mediocrity).
> 
> Cheers,
> TSD (hastily dons flame-suit)



TSD,

Sometimes it is unavoidable to lump styles together for the award of places etc due to low entry numbers, but in NSW we try to have seperate panels judge 'compatible' styles and then re-combine the scores. While this does keep the judges fresh from only doing 9-12 beers in a session it means that you need to have some consitency between the different panels.

We achieve this by having each sub-panel come together to compare notes and retaste the top 3 beers from each panel and jointly agree on the placings.

We also have all judges (25 in the case of NSW) score a standardising beer before the comp starts. The scoreroom then averages these and announces the average value to the judging hall. Judges can then adjust their approach if they scored the standard high or low etc.

David


----------



## Tseay (13/11/06)

There is no doubt that competition entrants should expect reasonable treatment from judges and you are quite right to raise your concerns.

However drawing between comp comparisons I think is a very knotty problem, statistically. My guess is that the confidence intervals on judging would be enormous. If for no other reason that we are talking about a small number in a judging panel. Im guessing that it would need some sort of non-parametric ANOVA to begin to test the differences between comps and panels within comps.

For my money in the first instance, consistency within the comp should be the principal concern. We run calibration beers to bring judges to an awareness of scoring differences and maybe we should be doing a better job with that information on the day. (I include me in that).

Comps that receive entrants that have already gone through a qualification process eg State to national should receive a more consistent set of beers that the feeder comp and this difference in reference set may effect scoring. There are behavioural issues at play as well. Judges at comps that receive entries that have already been qualified may be more critical than those from the feeder comp who have to deal with a bigger range from fantastic to terrible. There will always be issues on the day that will effect results.

What is more important is not that there is a difference between state and national comps, but that differences are as consistent as possible. Feedback to feeder comps will be an important part of this process.

T


----------



## /// (13/11/06)

What is more important is not that there is a difference between state and national comps, but that differences are as consistent as possible. Feedback to feeder comps will be an important part of this process.

T
[/quote]

Agree, so as DJR has already noted....

1. Asher's APA. 122 AABC, at SABSOSA 111.9
2. Ross M - IPA - 105.5 AABC - ??? at ACT comp
3. Trent Maier - AIPA - 111 AABC, 102.5 NSW

4. Tony W IPA - 87.5 AABC, 119 Vicbrew
5. Ben S APA - 84.5 AABC, 106.5 NSW
=6. Rick A APA - 83 AABC, 107.5 NSW
=6. ? - Steam Beer - 83 AABC, 122 Vicbrew

What the!

Scotty


----------



## warrenlw63 (13/11/06)

Sounds like some of you blokes are just oozing sour grapes personally. <_< 

Would it have been better had your APA finished 1st/2nd in a 4 horse race? Just appears to me that one set of judges have differing opinions to another set of judges. Nobody is right or wrong, just different on the given day. Also bundling all the beers seems sane to me given the fact there were only a dozen finalists. Also do we just jam the sole Australian PA in it's own category?

Be honest with yourselves... The best beer won on the day. Well done BTW Asher.  

Sometimes comps and the various levels of negative feedback gives me the shites. Some people either need to have fun or take a course in learning how to build a bridge. 

There's always next year.

Warren -


----------



## DJR (13/11/06)

Me? Oozing sour grapes? :lol:


----------



## warrenlw63 (13/11/06)

DJR said:


> Notice how different the scores are? If this is SERIOUSLY the judging standard that we are going to expect, with as much as a 39 point difference, what is the point of entering at all? You might as well throw darts at a board to decide the winner.



Also try and bear in mind DJR it's better to wait for your judging sheets before pointing fingers. Is there any chance you could have sent a bottle that was say... Less perfect than your state comp bottle? Wouldn't be the first person who has.  

Edit: Personally I don't enter them anymore either DJR. I find them much akin to comparing dick sizes. :lol: OTOH I never begrudge those who enjoy doing so. Different strokes for different folks. 

Warren -


----------



## Tseay (13/11/06)

/// said:


> What is more important is not that there is a difference between state and national comps, but that differences are as consistent as possible. Feedback to feeder comps will be an important part of this process.
> 
> T





5. Ben S APA - 84.5 AABC, 106.5 NSW
=6. Rick A APA - 83 AABC, 107.5 NSW



Scotty
[/quote]



Scotty

I am not "defending or condeming' the results, but without a lot of work, the results above could well be consistent and with reasonsable confidence limits. I just think that the answer isn't simple and that there could be measures that could be taken in the short term that could help. Why not brew a "standard " beer and distruibute it to all comps for cross checking ?

T


----------



## DJR (13/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> DJR said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how different the scores are? If this is SERIOUSLY the judging standard that we are going to expect, with as much as a 39 point difference, what is the point of entering at all? You might as well throw darts at a board to decide the winner.
> ...



Well at least we agree on something then!

I don't think the "bad bottle" clause has been invoked, as there are 4 entries with a difference of between 20 and 39 points, so yes i'll be waiting for the tasting notes with baited breath!

In other news, the Castle Hill show comp did actually seem to go well for me, and i didn't have to spend $22 getting 1 single bottle into it! (entry fee+postage+packaging)


----------



## bigfridge (13/11/06)

Tseay said:


> Why not brew a "standard " beer and distruibute it to all comps for cross checking ?



No need to brew it, just buy it. We always use a characterfull commercial beer for the standardising beer. That way it should be a reasonable standard without major faults or wow factors ie middle of the road.

But this would also need the different comps to want to co-operate and raise standards. At the moment there is a fair bit of 'our way is better'. As Warren said "build the bridges" but at the moment they are either crumbling or the chasm is too wide to span.

David


----------



## therook (13/11/06)

"I find them much akin to comparing dick sizes. "



Hey Wazza......Spoken like a true Paco Vale boy 

Now who's talking sour grapes......


----------



## Wreck (13/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> DJR said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how different the scores are? If this is SERIOUSLY the judging standard that we are going to expect, with as much as a 39 point difference, what is the point of entering at all? You might as well throw darts at a board to decide the winner.
> ...



You're right that it could be a dodgy sample that was sent down, so I'm waiting to see the judges comments. But there do seem to be quite a few entries with a 30+ points difference which looks a little bizarre. 

And I don't think any of this is about sour grapes.


----------



## warrenlw63 (13/11/06)

therook said:


> "I find them much akin to comparing dick sizes. "
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not what we Paco boys have it's how we use it.  

Warren -


----------



## shotduck (13/11/06)

warrenlw63 said:


> Edit: Personally I don't enter them anymore either DJR. I find them much akin to comparing dick sizes. :lol: OTOH I never begrudge those who enjoy doing so. Different strokes for different folks.


Dicks?
Strokes?
*Maintains eye contact... backs away slowly...* :blink:


----------



## Kai (13/11/06)

DJR said:


> I don't think the "bad bottle" clause has been invoked, as there are 4 entries with a difference of between 20 and 39 points, so yes i'll be waiting for the tasting notes with baited breath!



Maybe the beers were past their prime, due to age and travel issues. It can happen, and I can see it happening moreso with an apa.


----------



## AndrewQLD (13/11/06)

Who's to say the AABC didn't get it right, maybe the state comps are the ones that stuffed it! (I am not saying they did).

While I agree that discussion is good, if I was an organiser or judge or steward at a competion I would be extremely upset by some of the comments posted in this thread.
These people spend a lot of time and effort, for no gain, to be there to judge and run these competitions. They get very little if any public recognition and here they are getting slammed because your results aren't what you expected.

If you think the way these competitions are run is not up to standard then perhaps joining the committee and making a real effort to affect the changes you feel are required is what you should be doing.
Sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think this thread is very constructive and, yes, it does smack of sour grapes.

cheers
Andrew


----------



## /// (13/11/06)

Not condeming or defending either, just looking at the numbers and the outcomes.

interesting reading ...

Scotty


----------



## Trough Lolly (13/11/06)

DJR said:


> I am going to chime in here on discrepancies in the judging process. This is for the AABC vs the other competitions that were run. Now i could have put this into the AABC results thread but it's better not to cloud it.
> 
> The specific example is the Pale Ale category. Now the BJCP defines three classes here, that AABA/vicbrew decided to lump into one - Amber Hybrid (including Steam/CC), American Pale Ale, India Pale Ale and Australian Pale Ale.
> ...[snip]...
> ...



There's one other thing to note....have a read of Rule D1 in the AABC rules:


> D1. Qualification. To qualify for the Australian Amateur Brewing Championship, a brewer must have placed first, second or third (and scored at least 60% of maximum possible points) in one of the years State/Territory Qualifying Championships (see D8 for handling tied placings). Entries must be in the same category/categories as the placing(s) achieved in the State/Territory Qualifying Championship. *If the original beer is no longer available, the brewer may enter the same or a different style (in that category).* The beer style must be a designated style for the category, as listed on the AABA category/style list available on the AABA website. The organisers reserve the right to reclassify non-conforming beers (i.e. in a non-listed style) to a listed AABC style.


**Emphasis added by me.

So you may not be judging the exact same batch of beer in the nationals, compared to what qualified in the lead up comp...If I brewed an earth shatteringly good Oktoberfest that scored its socks off in the local comp and got me through to the nationals, I may have drunk it all beforehand and put together another batch to submit in the AABC comp, which may or may not have been as good... That's the risk I need to accept. h34r: 

...and perhaps the judges at both comps got it right after all? :unsure: 

Cheers,
TL


----------



## DJR (13/11/06)

OK i think i've taken all this on the wrong foot...

As this was the first time i'd entered AABC i thought it was a little strange to see such a difference in scores, but i guess the differences are due to judging processes which i can't really fault. So if anyone has taken offence then i apologise, it wasn't my intention. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that i should clean up, get grand champ brewer, etc. I'll leave that to the more experienced brewers out there who deserve the recognition more than me.

Sure some of this may be seen as sour grapes, but it's just more stuff to learn for me. Having the 2nd APA in the nationals is nothing to be sneezed at, i wish it was more than that, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. I wasn't expecting anything to start with at the start of the comps, as it was only my 2nd AG and my 1st AG APA.

My main beef is that the categories were not consistent and that a couple of entries i know of could not be entered even though they had successfully qualified, all because of disagreements between the organising committees. Perhaps a more coherent strategy from all parties involved, even just some compromise from either side, may see the next AABC comp a little better organised and satisfying more people. These were NOT my beers at all, but i do feel that the judges were not tasting all that was out there ready to be judged at the top level, all because of some silly rules that at the end of the day are still the rules that all the entrants must adhere to.


----------



## wee stu (13/11/06)

Until I see my results sheets, I have nothing material to comment upon. 

AS kai has said, some beers may just have peaked too early. My stout, for one, is apparently in a steady and terminal decline  

The equivalent time series scores for it are

Comp.............Score.......Judged
SABSOSA.......120pts.....September
ANAWBS..........112.5......October
AABC................78.5.....November

I don't think I will be saving the few remaining bottles until Xmas  

Many thanks to the organisers for taking the time and trouble to run the competition. 
I look forward to my judging sheets.


----------



## Barry (13/11/06)

Good Day
One factor that can affect outcomes (certainly not the only all explaining one) is distance in my experience. 
The greater the distance I have to send the entries the greater the inconsistencies between scores/comments/personal evaluations. Crafted beer does not benefit usually from travel, high temps and high temp variation (though a tripel I enter recently certainly seem to benefit from the long trip, extra character?). Local brewers usually appear to score better in comps because of the lack of travel, less worries with the variations in temp etc. So the local entries might be/seem "fresher" to the judges while interstate entries might have to survive a lucky dip of conditions (some affected, others not).
If you are judging beer to style the class should not influence the score if the beers are judged in correct order eg Aussie pale, then APA then IPA. The APA should be judged against the APA style, the IPA against its style guide. There could be trouble judging if the IPA's were judged before the APA's but I doubt that this would happen. 
I have had more disappointing scores than good ones but I got great deal of feedback from it (most of which I have agreed with over time). I enter comps for fun, feedback, challenge of a new style and I like to judge in comps for fun, meet a great group of people, talk about brewing and beer, etc. :beer: 
As a judge I am certain that my scoring and comments have not always been right but like every judge I have had the pleasure to judge with I try my upmost best.
In the end I brew, enter comps and judge for fun, I go to work for money.


----------



## Wreck (13/11/06)

Well said!


----------



## mikem108 (13/11/06)

hear hear Barry, in my case it was the opposite NSW judges absolutely slayed my IPA entry which got second in SA so go figure, no point in getting "sour" about it, unless is Les's entry we are talking about


----------



## Stuster (13/11/06)

I think Barry's right about the effect of distance. My altbier scored 30 lower at AABC than at the state comp, but it's certainly possible that this was due to the travel. I posted the beer on a Friday and I guess it was stuck in some post bag (probably upside down after getting shaken around) over the weekend before being delivered on Monday. The variable effects of PO handling might go some way to explaining how some beers were unaffected by travel, while others were badly affected.

A positive I have noted personally from entering comps is that I pay more attention to the aroma/taste/etc of my beers than I did previously. I'm happy with the feedback I received from the state comps. While the categories at the national/state categories need to be standardised, I've found entering these events to be helpful with making and (most importantly) drinking good beer. :chug: 

Thanks to all who give up their free time to make comps happen. :beer:


----------



## Trent (13/11/06)

First up
Thanks, nay, a massive thanks, to all who have participated and helped in the comps around the country that have led up to the aabc, and the aabc itself. I am very proud that my AIPA came third, and may I correct DJR's numbers, and say it was 111 at state, and 102.5 at the aabc (well done to asher for his 122, musta been a hell of a beer). I must say that I was a little shocked at the performance of my brown porter, having beaten Barry Cranston's excellent robust porter at state by 15 points odd (cant recall exact numbers), and then finish 20 points behind Barry's robust porter in the nationals. This is not sour grapes, as I know from experience that Barry's porter is excellent, but I just found it unusual. I do look forward to getting back the sheets, as I got some excellent feedback from state, quite alot of which I can put to good use to improve my upcoming brews, even the ones that did well, and I am sure that the aabc sheets will be the same. I am sure that the distance has done my beer no favours, and it is getting on a bit in age, but the winning pale came all the way from west oz, so if distance was going to tarnish it, thats where it woulda been noticed most. I think it would probably be a good idea to have all the comps run similar, seeings as the best of show in nsw wasnt even allowed to enter the nats, but at the end of the day, judging is quite a subjective art, and it allows me different insights into my brews.
Thanks again to all the volunteers, and congrats to all the winners!
All the best
Trent


----------



## Weizguy (13/11/06)

Maybe the Nat comp should have a group of tasters in each state, with an average score across the nation.

*...like Eurovision! *  

And U have to send 2 bottles to each venue. Sure it'd cost a packet, but HELL...U want standardised scoring don't U? Maybe the AABC organisers could put some sponsor money toward the postage/packing costs.

I'd feel more comfortable with this plan, wouldn't U? :super: 

And a video link hook-up to discourage beer or score tampering...just so U could see the faces the judges make as they sample the infected sauer weisse. (Hey, don't mention the war.) :chug: 

Seth (teninchtongue firmly in cheek) 

Edit: sober spelling is slower and still has the same result due to dyslexic fingers.


----------

