Brew Con London 2017 - Judges Session

Brew Con London 2017 - Judges Session

Slides from the judge training session, lead by Lee Immins at Brew Con London, 2017

A5bff96f8a112bbf8ecf490c869cf9a8?s=128

London Amateur Brewers

November 12, 2017
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Brew Con London 2017 Judges Session Lee Immins, Sarah Pantry,

    Ali Kocho-Williams
  2. None
  3. Objectives • Style Education and Scoring Calibration Exercise – Ordinary

    and Best Bitter • Off-flavour education and sensory analysis – Acetaldehyde • Writing Better Score Sheets • Discussion on state of judging in UK, competitions, requests for BJCP rep and call for volunteers. • What is the continuing education program and how do you set one up?
  4. Scoring Calibration

  5. Process • Quickly score the beers as you would in

    a competition setting as we describe the style. • Afterwards we will compare scores and discuss differences. • The idea is to help you calibrate scoring. Don’t get hung up on a point here or there and do not worry if you score differently to others, be open minded to the discussion and take away themes, for example do you always score too high or too low? • You will have a number of beers to score, whilst the presentation is going on. Some homebrew, some classic examples, some faulty.
  6. 11A Ordinary Bitter 11B Best Bitter

  7. Bitters – Why are they hard to judge • A

    bitter is a low body, bitter balanced sessionable beer which should have a good sensory profile – but it is not an in your face AIPA • Hard to make as easy to unbalance. Whole flights can be poor – folks are trying but need the right feedback to improve! • Showing 11C Strong Bitter for comparison but not going to talk about it
  8. Overall Impression Overall impression Characteristic Ingredients Commercial Examples 11A Ordinary

    Bitter Low gravity, low alcohol levels, and low carbonation make this an easy-drinking session beer. The malt profile can vary in flavor and intensity, but should never override the overall bitter impression. Drinkability is a critical component of the style The lowest gravity member of the British Bitter family, typically known to consumers simply as “bitter” (although brewers tend to refer to it as Ordinary Bitter to distinguish it from other members of the family). Some modern variants are brewed exclusively with pale malt and are known as golden ales, summer ales, or golden bitters. Emphasis is on the bittering hop addition as opposed to the aggressive middle and late hopping seen in American ales. 11B Best Bitter A flavorful, yet refreshing, session beer. Some examples can be more malt balanced, but this should not override the overall bitter impression. Drinkability is a critical component of the style. More evident malt flavor than in an ordinary bitter, this is a stronger, session-strength ale. More alcohol than an ordinary bitter, and often using higher-quality ingredients. Less alcohol than a strong bitter. More caramel or base malt character and color than a British Golden Ale. Emphasis is on the bittering hop addition as opposed to the aggressive middle and late hopping seen in American ales. 11C Strong Bitter An average-strength to moderately-strong British bitter ale. The balance may be fairly even between malt and hops to somewhat bitter. Drinkability is a critical component of the style. A rather broad style that allows for considerable interpretation by the brewer. In England today, “ESB” is a Fullers trademark, and no one thinks of it as a generic class of beer. It is a unique (but very well- known) beer that has a very strong, complex malt profile not found in other examples, often leading judges to overly penalize traditional English strong bitters. In America, ESB has been co-opted to describe a malty, bitter, reddish, standard-strength (for the US) British-type ale, and is a popular craft beer style. This may cause some judges to think of US brewpub ESBs as representative of this style. More evident malt and hop flavors than in a special or best bitter, as well as more alcohol. Stronger versions may overlap somewhat with British strong ales, although strong bitters will tend to be paler and more bitter. More malt flavor (particularly caramel) and esters than an American Pale Ale, with different finishing hop character.
  9. Statistics # Styles ABV min ABV max IBUs min IBUs

    max SRM min SRM max OG min OG max FG min FG max 11A Ordinary Bitter 3.2 3.8 25 35 8.0 14.0 1030 1039 1007 1011 11B Best Bitter 3.8 4.6 25 40 8.0 16.0 1040 1048 1008 1012 11C Strong Bitter 4.6 6.2 30 50 8.0 18.0 1048 1060 1010 1016
  10. Appearance 11A Ordinary Bitter Pale amber to light copper color.

    Good to brilliant clarity. Low to moderate white to off-white head. May have very little head due to low carbonation. 11B Best Bitter Pale amber to medium copper color. Good to brilliant clarity. Low to moderate white to off-white head. May have very little head due to low carbonation. 11C Strong Bitter Light amber to deep copper color. Good to brilliant clarity. Low to moderate white to off-white head. A low head is acceptable when carbonation is also low.
  11. Aroma 11A Ordinary Bitter Low to moderate malt aroma, often

    (but not always) with a light caramel quality. Bready, biscuity, or lightly toasty malt complexity is common. Mild to moderate fruitiness. Hop aroma can range from moderate to none, typically with a floral, earthy, resiny, and/or fruity character. Generally no diacetyl, although very low levels are allowed. 11B Best Bitter Low to moderate malt aroma, often (but not always) with a low to medium-low caramel quality. Bready, biscuit, or lightly toasty malt complexity is common. Mild to moderate fruitiness. Hop aroma can range from moderate to none, typically with a floral, earthy, resiny, and/or fruity character. Generally no diacetyl, although very low levels are allowed. 11C Strong Bitter Hop aroma moderately-high to moderately-low, typically with a floral, earthy, resiny, and/or fruity character. Medium to medium-high malt aroma, optionally with a low to moderate caramel component. Medium-low to medium-high fruity esters. Generally no diacetyl, although very low levels are allowed.
  12. Flavour 11A Ordinary Bitter Medium to moderately high bitterness. Moderately

    low to moderately high fruity esters. Moderate to low hop flavor, typically with an earthy, resiny, fruity, and/or floral character. Low to medium maltiness with a dry finish. The malt profile is typically bready, biscuity, or lightly toasty. Low to moderate caramel or toffee flavors are optional. Balance is often decidedly bitter, although the bitterness should not completely overpower the malt flavor, esters and hop flavor. Generally no diacetyl, although very low levels are allowed. 11B Best Bitter Medium to moderately high bitterness. Moderately low to moderately high fruity esters. Moderate to low hop flavor, typically with an earthy, resiny, fruity, and/or floral character. Low to medium maltiness with a dry finish. The malt profile is typically bready, biscuity, or lightly toasty. Low to moderate caramel or toffee flavors are optional. Balance is often decidedly bitter, although the bitterness should not completely overpower the malt flavor, esters and hop flavor. Generally no diacetyl, although very low levels are allowed. 11C Strong Bitter Medium to medium-high bitterness with supporting malt flavors evident. The malt profile is typically bready, biscuity, nutty, or lightly toasty, and optionally has a moderately low to moderate caramel or toffee flavor. Hop flavor moderate to moderately high, typically with a floral, earthy, resiny, and/or fruity character. Hop bitterness and flavor should be noticeable, but should not totally dominate malt flavors. Moderately-low to high fruity esters. Optionally may have low amounts of alcohol. Medium-dry to dry finish. Generally no diacetyl, although very low levels are allowed.
  13. Mouthfeel 11A Ordinary Bitter Light to medium-light body. Low carbonation,

    although bottled examples can have moderate carbonation. 11B Best Bitter Medium-light to medium body. Low carbonation, although bottled examples can have moderate carbonation. 11C Strong Bitter Medium-light to medium-full body. Low to moderate carbonation, although bottled versions will be higher. Stronger versions may have a slight alcohol warmth but this character should not be too high.
  14. Characteristic Ingredients Commercial Examples 11A Ordinary Bitter Pale ale, amber,

    and/or crystal malts. May use a touch of dark malt for color adjustment. May use sugar adjuncts, corn, or wheat. English finishing hops are most traditional, but any hops are fair game; if American hops are used, a light touch is required. Characterful British yeast. Adnams Southwold Bitter, Brains Bitter, Fuller's Chiswick Bitter, Greene King IPA, Tetley’s Original Bitter, Young's Bitter 11B Best Bitter Pale ale, amber, and/or crystal malts. May use a touch of dark malt for color adjustment. May use sugar adjuncts, corn or wheat. English finishing hops are most traditional, but any hops are fair game; if American hops are used, a light touch is required. Characterful British yeast. Adnams SSB, Coniston Bluebird Bitter, Fuller's London Pride, Harvey’s Sussex Best Bitter, Shepherd Neame Master Brew Kentish Ale, Timothy Taylor Landlord, Young’s Special 11C Strong Bitter Pale ale, amber, and/or crystal malts, may use a touch of black malt for color adjustment. May use sugar adjuncts, corn or wheat. English finishing hops are most traditional, but any hops are fair game; if American hops are used, a light touch is required. Characterful British yeast. Burton versions use medium to high sulfate water, which can increase the perception of dryness and add a minerally or sulfury aroma and flavor. Bass Ale, Highland Orkney Blast, Samuel Smith’s Old Brewery Pale Ale, Shepherd Neame Bishop's Finger, Shepherd Neame Spitfire, West Berkshire Dr. Hexter’s Healer, Whitbread Pale Ale, Young’s Ram Rod
  15. Decision Strategies • In a top-down decision making strategy, the

    judge forms an overall impression about the quality of the beer, decides what overall score to assign that beer, and deducts points for each deficient characteristic of the beer based on the overall impression. The problem with this top-down approach to beer evaluation is that it is difficult to ensure that the points allocated to each subcategory (e.g., aroma, appearance, flavor, body) agree with the comments that were made about that feature of the beer. • In a bottom-up decision making strategy, the judge scores each subcategory of the beer, deducting points for each deficient characteristic. The overall score is determined by summing the points for each subcategory. The problem with this bottom-up approach to beer evaluation is that it easy to arrive at an overall score for the beer that does not agree with the overall impression of the beer. In short, judges who use a top-down approach to judging beers may "miss the trees for the forest," while judges who use a bottom-up approach to judging beers may "miss the forest for the trees." • The third approach starts at a neutral point of scoring in each section, especially Aroma, Flavor and Overall Impression sections, and then adds or subtracts points depending on whether the characteristic is better or worse than an “average” example of the beer. For example, if the aroma of a specific beer in a stated style has stylistic or technical faults, then subtract from the mid-point of six. If there are positive qualities to the aroma that exemplify the style, then add points until you approach the ideal score of 12.
  16. Scoring • Overall scores should conform to the descriptions given

    at the bottom of each scoresheet. • Excellent ratings (38-44) should be assigned to beers that are excellent representations of the style. • Very Good ratings (30-37) should be assigned to good representations of the style that have only minor flaws. • Good ratings (21-29) should be assigned to good representations of the style that have significant flaws. • Drinkable ratings (14-20) should be assigned to beers that do not adequately represent the style because of serious flaws. A • A problem rating (13 or lower) is typically assigned to beers that contain flaws that are so serious that the beer is rendered undrinkable. • The scoresheet reserves the 45-50 range for outstanding beers that are truly world-class. • In general, the best beers at a competition should be assigned scores in the 40+ range, with real evaluations of the beer identifying some characteristics of the beer that make it non-perfect. A beer receiving a perfect score of 50 must indeed be perfect; it must have absolutely no flaws, exemplify the style as well as or better than the best commercial examples, be perfectly brewery-fresh, and be well-handled and presented. These conditions might not all be under the brewer’s control, so achieving a perfect beer at the point of presentation to judges is extremely rare.
  17. Bias • Scoring everything too high compared to others •

    Scoring everything too low compared to others • Not using the whole width of scores • Personal preference or knowledge of styles • Personal sensitivity to off-flavours • Starting too high or low in a flight – ‘the baseline’ • Scoring too high after a bad or series of bad beers and vice versa • Fatigue and errors
  18. Fatigue and Errors • During a judging flight, it is

    important to keep in mind that errors can creep into your judging decisions as a result of fatigue (palate or physical), distractions, or the order in which beers are presented. More specifically, judges may tend to assign scores (central scoring) in a much narrower range as time progresses simply because palate fatigue causes the beers to taste more and more similar over time. Conversely, judges may assign one or two beers much higher scores than other beers simply because they stand out as being much more flavorful (extreme scoring). In addition, as judges become tired (and possibly intoxicated) during long flights, they may allow impressions of some very noticeable characteristics of particular beers to overly influence their perceptions (and scores) of other characteristics of the beers (halo effect). For example, a weizen that is too dark may (falsely) also seem too heavy and caramel-flavored. Also during long flights, judges need to be mindful of the fact that proximity errors (e.g., assigning scores that are too high to a beer that follows a poor example of the style) and drift (e.g., assigning progressively lower (or higher) scores to beers as time progresses) may influence the validity of the scores that they assign (Wolfe, 1996; Wolfe & Wolfe, 1997). • Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to know when errors such as these have crept into your judgments. Therefore, it is extremely important to retaste all of the beers in a flight, especially the ones in the top half of the flight. In general, most flights should contain less than 12 beers, so this would entail retasting at least the 6 that receive the highest scores. Each beer should be carefully reevaluated to make sure that the rank ordering of the assigned scores reflects your overall impression of the actual quality of the beers. Only after retasting and discussion of these impressions should awards be assigned to beers within the flight. Note that the competition coordinator may request that you readjust your scores to reflect any discrepancies between the ordering of awards and the ordering of assigned scores
  19. Fatigue and Errors • During a judging flight, it is

    important to keep in mind that errors can creep into your judging decisions as a result of fatigue (palate or physical), distractions, or the order in which beers are presented. More specifically, judges may tend to assign scores (central scoring) in a much narrower range as time progresses simply because palate fatigue causes the beers to taste more and more similar over time. Conversely, judges may assign one or two beers much higher scores than other beers simply because they stand out as being much more flavorful (extreme scoring). In addition, as judges become tired (and possibly intoxicated) during long flights, they may allow impressions of some very noticeable characteristics of particular beers to overly influence their perceptions (and scores) of other characteristics of the beers (halo effect). For example, a weizen that is too dark may (falsely) also seem too heavy and caramel-flavored. Also during long flights, judges need to be mindful of the fact that proximity errors (e.g., assigning scores that are too high to a beer that follows a poor example of the style) and drift (e.g., assigning progressively lower (or higher) scores to beers as time progresses) may influence the validity of the scores that they assign (Wolfe, 1996; Wolfe & Wolfe, 1997). • Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to know when errors such as these have crept into your judgments. Therefore, it is extremely important to retaste all of the beers in a flight, especially the ones in the top half of the flight. In general, most flights should contain less than 12 beers, so this would entail retasting at least the 6 that receive the highest scores. Each beer should be carefully reevaluated to make sure that the rank ordering of the assigned scores reflects your overall impression of the actual quality of the beers. Only after retasting and discussion of these impressions should awards be assigned to beers within the flight. Note that the competition coordinator may request that you readjust your scores to reflect any discrepancies between the ordering of awards and the ordering of assigned scores
  20. The purpose of the Education and Training Directorate (ETD) is

    to develop, recognize, and encourage worthwhile continuing education opportunities for the BJCP membership. • In order to incorporate these sessions into the established BJCP program, they must be well-structured, and the roles for presenters, organizers and attendees must be well-defined. • The Education Liaison must review and approve the following at least one month in advance of the event or first course that is part of the series: • The schedule of the event/session(s) or syllabus. • List of topics. • List of presenter(s) along with their credentials. • Any supporting materials. • A copy of any test questions or exercises that will be given to or conducted with the participants. • This enables the ETD to ensure that the basic components, such as tasting and the instruction in technical and stylistic topics, are included and presented capably, and to develop a library of presentations for other organizers and presenters to use.
  21. Point Award Outline You must be a BJCP member at

    the time of the course or event to receive points. For this purpose, membership is determined by the date you took the BJCP exam. Position Point Award Limitations Organizer 2 points per day 6.0 points maximum Co-organizer *splits points with organizer 3.0 points maximum Presenter 0.5 point per session 3.0 points maximum Attendee 0.5 point per session 3.0 points maximum Staff 0.5 point per day 1.0 points maximum • ETD Course Point Schedule • NO retroactive points will be allowed. • Organizers MAY NOT earn attendee points but MAY earn presenter points. • A co-organizer may be chosen and will split the organizer points equally. • Presenters MAY earn both presenter and attendee points in same day but NOT for same session. • Organizers may choose staff to help; however, the number of staff members should be in proportion to the number of course participants.