National Homebrew Club Ireland

I brought this up both in Galway and Dublin but I feel it should be aired on the forum for discussion.

First off, a big congratulations to the organisers for a mammoth task. I don't envy you in any way. The time and effort that goes in to these things is ridiculous, especially for a group of volunteers.

Now, to where I would like to see improvements that would benefit not just the judges but also the entrants especially.

The 2 bottle requirement simply isn't good enough for a national level competition in my opinion. It's fine for a small regional that only takes a couple of hours and might have 20 entries or less. I believe that there should be a 3 bottle requirement, possibly even 4*.
I believe that each time a judge tastes a particular beer, it should be from a fresh bottle. That means:

- One bottle for initial judging.
- One for a mini BOS - Very important as it determines medal.
- One for BOS - Very important for obvious reasons.
- An optional 4th for redundancy*.

Here are the issues as I see them. Judging starts at 10:30 and a very high scoring beer gets shall we say 47 points? That beer is very likely going to get a medal but what happens is that the leftover beer is then set aside with the open cap shoved back on and brought back out at mini BOS. This happens after lunch, a good 3 or 4 hours later. That 47 has been sitting out, losing carbonation, exposed to air and has already been swirled around making it murky with yeast, assuming it's bottle conditioned. The beer presented to the mini bos is not the same beer that scored 47 points earlier and may not win a medal.
That puts the likely winner of the mini bos as a high scoring beer towards the end of the first session, one that has only been sitting around for less than an hour.

One option is to have a capper and caps on hand and place the beer in to a cool environment, that's better than nothing but it's still not going to provide the optimum experience in determining a medal. I think that mini BOS is more important to the brewer than BOS and judges should not be judging dregs that have been sitting around for hours. It's unfair to the judges and especially unfair to the brewers.

Now, there is an argument that requiring an extra bottle will significantly add to the number of bottles that need to be taken care of. It will but for our national competition, I think it's our duty to deal with that extra hassle for the integrity of the competition.

Every beer that's up for a medal should be on an absolutely level playing field which means a freshly bottle opened.
Not everyone who enters believes they might win a medal, some just want feedback in order to improve their skills. Entering a 3rd bottle could be made optional but I feel it should be mandatory. It gives everyone a level playing field going in to the competition.

*The extra beer for redundancy is just in case of a disaster but should not be required of course.

I agree somewhat. Regarding recapping and putting the beer back into cold storage that really depends on the setup. There's no way we could manage that in a venue like Alfie's where the cold room is miles away but if it's a venue like the Oslo it's a bit more manageable. We were going to recap bottles properly at Alfies like we did last year but I forgot to bring the capper. Next year I'll try and remember to bring a capper + fresh caps.

I'm not sure how adding a 3rd bottle would be for the bottle sorters and people who then have to transport them about (i.e. Ciderhead). At the minute I think he fills a trailer with crates. Would probably need a small van if there's a 33% increase in bottles.

Perhaps, as a compromise the 3rd bottle should only be required for the bigger categories e.g. Stouts, American Ales. Basically, the ones who then have a mini BOS. Failing that, judges should be advised to leave enough in the bottle for the mini BOS.

Quote from: irish_goat on March 09, 2015, 12:00:01 PM

Perhaps, as a compromise the 3rd bottle should only be required for the bigger categories e.g. Stouts, American Ales. Basically, the ones who then have a mini BOS. Failing that, judges should be advised to leave enough in the bottle for the mini BOS.

Good point, some of the smaller categories wouldn't need a mini BOS so two bottles will suffice.

So that's why I didn't get gold!!

Clearly yes  ;)

I appreciate the sentiment, but a third bottle is simply un-able Adding  33 per cent more crates is a nightmare.
judges shouldn't require a full bottle for first round, we have had a few instances of a full bottle being consumed , this has only happened with 40+ beers.
I appreciate your frustration around the 50 beer.
I'd strongly recommend improving the process with 2 bottles , bottle capers ,Refrigeration
it sounds draconian but we might need to limit the tasting sample judges use, if judges are pouring too much ,this needs to be flagged.
it can be hard to tell off a judge, the stewards and head steward don't have an easy job.

Probably wise to meet up in a couple of weeks do a de-brief on the whole gig.

I'm still exhausted,  have to go through the paperwork this evening. Need to get those scoreheets out ASAP

James

Could BOS be judged at a later date? Either 3rd bottle is submitted after you win gold or the third bottle is stored elsewhere and only collected for bos judging.

I'm not talking about volume, I'm talking about freshness.

The volume is largely irrelevant, but would come in to it somewhat. I think only one beer was reduced to the dregs due to people trying it as well as judges taking more to double check our findings.

I'm not sure where the beer that scored 50 even comes in to it. There was plenty left and it was near the end of the session so should have been able to stand on its own merit as it wasn't hanging around for long.
It was a frustration in Galway and Dublin as well as in previous years where mini bos comes up and a beer that either I judged or someone else judged came up, was recognised but it had been sitting there so long that it wasn't the beer that was originally judged. In fact James, I think you have been in that position too if I remember correctly from Cork.

I had thought that a separate BOS day might be useful.

Apologies,  I thought this was stemming from the 50 Not getting a good swing at it.
I take your point on freshness, but I suppose if its all judged in the mornung session this situation is helped.
if you did bos on a separate day  , then you could potentially  get a third bottle sent in, but the integrity of the entries could be a problem and also not judging bos on the same day is a bit of a let down.

I'd recommend getting the volunteers together and get  feedback on pros and cons. I personally think it's very smoothly run, we probably could get more helpers with the back office, kellie and vinny and Paula got particularly  hammered yesterday. (With work !), that was a little unfair and we should ensure it doesn't happen next year.

+1

Having a BOS at a later date turns it into a 3 day affair which excludes anyone outside the Pale as inevitably this is where it will be held.

A 100ml or so sample should be adequate for judging - I believe some tables were returning empty bottles from the first round - this is not a piss-up. Emptying a good beer on the first round is not acceptable. The only case where this may be an issue if there are more than 2 judges at a table - sometimes unavoidable.

1 x bench capper might help, capping straight away after judging - the sparkle may be gone, and oxidation should be minimal. If the beers are that memorable they would hopefully stand out.

Quote from: Partridge9 on March 09, 2015, 12:32:40 PM
Probably wise to meet up in a couple of weeks do a de-brief on the whole gig.

Could this be done as a thread/PM/email in order to get as much judge feedback as possible?

I'd like to contribute to this, but I'm unlikely to make a F2F meeting in the next couple of weeks.

Quote from: johnrm on March 09, 2015, 01:30:43 PMI believe some tables were returning empty bottles from the first round - this is not a piss-up.

;D ;D

Sorry John lad, I know you're raising a very valid point, but I pisd myself laughing reading that..  :)

I have to confess, that although myself and CH never sent back an empty bottle from the first round, we probably did over-pour a bit and we left ourselves a bit short on one particular beer for the mini BOS.

It would have been good idea to remind judges of this in the briefing. (Did the judges briefing even happen? I arrived pretty early, but I never saw a briefing going on...)

Very quickly - 1000 beers barely fit into a trailer. If we take 3 times that then we need a truck for 1500 entries. We would need a monster cold room and all but 25 beer will be thrown away.  I'll get to a computer later but the logistics are huge.

Anyone know why the cider/mead winners, and BOS winners aren't appearing on the registration site??

I do appreciate your feedback btw and I'll be mailing judges about it later in the week to see how we can keep winning going forward. Cheers.

Quote from: Bubbles on March 09, 2015, 02:02:25 PM
Anyone know why the cider/mead winners, and BOS winners aren't appearing on the registration site??

Yeap - I need to get that to ya !

The Cider / Mead / Wine are in the paper work at home .. sorry - Ill update it later.

The BOS
1: - Richard Lubell and his Weizenbock
2: - JOC and his Helles
3:- Jakub and his smoked porter

Well done lads - specatular beers !

Usual caveats apply; the below is constructive criticism, not intended as digs :)

Just some thoughts from my day there:
1. As a suggestion for next year, I think there should be a prepared checklist for the introduction for stewards and judges. It works itself out as the day goes on, but the initial briefing is chaotic and unclear. A simple show and tell with walk through of a judging round, as well as preparing packs for each table, would make it all very smooth and clear-cut.

2. Regarding bottles, it's already a logistical nightmare, so I think it's more a case of having to work within the constraints. Recapping would help, as well as keeping bottles in the cold-room before and after the category is judged. Maybe a mini ice bath on the judging tables or a big though to pop each crate into while it's in the judging room?
Clear guidelines to judges and stewards would also help - it was not communicated to try and keep some back for the bos etc and there are a low of newbies present.

3. Stewards probably need a few more assigned roles in the later stages. Maybe when the judging of the main categories is over, get them all back together and send them off to do the last few dirty chores; as it ended up, there was only a few of us downstairs at the end helping Tom with the bottles. In fact, I think it was more judges than stewards for the final haul :)

4. Poor Kellie really needs more help up at the head table. She was doing a sterling job, but there's only so much one person can do. I'm sure she can pitch in with some ideas on this, but basically, give her enough slaves to do her job. If really necessary, buy her a whip for the day >:)

Quote from: Partridge9 on March 09, 2015, 02:22:30 PM
The BOS
1: - Richard Lubell and his Weizenbock
2: - JOC and his Helles
3:- Jakub and his smoke porter

Smoked? Sure that I've entered Baltic :P

Quote from: johnrm on March 09, 2015, 01:30:43 PM

A 100ml or so sample should be adequate for judging - I believe some tables were returning empty bottles from the first round - this is not a piss-up. Emptying a good beer on the first round is not acceptable.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. 100ml is far more than adequate for a bad or mediocre beer and acceptable for anything up to about 40 points. It's much easier to judge off flavours than try to find a reason not to give an exceptional beer 50 points.

When a beer gets in the 40s, it means that it is outstanding and quite often, in order to get an accurate score, more is needed to double check certain aspects. This is rare by the way, quite often, 100ml is more than enough and in some cases, far too much.
The other problem with the exceptionally good (or bad) beer is not only do judges pass it to other judges for some clarification, stewards want a taste too. Again, this doesn't happen with average beer, just the exceptional on either side of the scale.

I have lots of feedback and suggestions to help things run smoothly next year. And will happily meet up to discuss. With every event there is always learning moving forward. It was a great 2 days to be involved in and would I do it again?  Hell yes,  just armed in a different way.  Molc is right a lot more help is needed at head table,  l didn't have enough time to keep an eye on everything that I needed too! I laugh at the whip suggestion because i threatened that in Galway! :) ;)

Galway was an easier day to co ordinate as there was 150 beers judge, Dublin had 300 beers judged! Great learning curve for me :)

So:
A 3rd bottle from everyone would create logistical problems for collection.
Recapping and rechilling is more work for the stewards on the day.

What about about if you win your category, you're responsible for getting a 3rd bottle to a drop point for the BOS, which would be run on a third day?
I realize that a separate round of collection is another set of expenses/effort/headaches, but it's 25 bottles at most, right? And there'd exemptions for bottles from abroad, etc.

Just spitballing here; I think it's an issue that deserves some real thought.

Recapping on the day isn't a problem. It takes a few seconds to do and stewards (plus myself) would have the time for that. The issue with re-chilling is that the bottles come back in dribs and drabs so if the cellar is far away it's a lot of work to get them back. I don't think I like the idea of the 3rd day as it means then the medals for overall best beer wouldn't get handed out on the main night.

Quote from: Tube on March 09, 2015, 07:12:05 PM
I thought last year that we discussed reimbursement of fuel costs to enable more contributors (ie ppl with cars) to the logistics side of things. Would cover that suggestion.

I doubt you'd see any increase in volunteers. What do you mean "ppl with cars"? I have 2 cars and it would take more than a few bob to get me to drive around the country collecting bottles of beer. The people who did ALL the donkey work for the competition didn't do it for compensation. They do it because they enjoy helping make such a great event happen. Take a bow guys, because you did good. Again. We appreciate it.

I really think 2 bottles is plenty. A capper on the day is essential. The club should buy one and put it in the box where all the other competition stuff is kept.

It's only the high scoring beers from large fights that would need to be refrigerated. It might be possible to have a small fridge in a venue where the cold room is too far away?

Judges should be briefed to go handy on the high scorers. Stewards should be briefed to keep an eye on the high scorers too, and avoid the temptation to drain the bottle any further. There'll be buckets of beer that can be sampled at the end of the evening.

Would a requirement to use swing tops only help with the issue of capping the bottles. I stewarded on Saturday & I found it difficult to direct judges at times, skirting a fine line between being assertive & coming across like I was dictating to the judges. Time keeping & going handy on the beer were a constant issue with some judges. I would agree that giving judges guidelines or a briefing would help.

I wanted to thank everyone who contributed their time in whatever capacity as I had a great day.

Shanna

Quote from: Shanna on March 09, 2015, 08:52:14 PM
Would a requirement to use swing tops only help with the issue of capping the bottles.

I think this would discourage people. Not everyone has a supply of them and it adds to the cost if you've to buy some specifically. Honestly, I have more than enough time on the day to recap bottles, I did it last year but forgot to bring the capper this time. I have 2 twin levers plus a bench capper so I will donate one of the twin levers next year.  :)

I'm actually going to use pet bottles next year as its much easier to get from the keg. Cheap as chips and reseable...

Hi there,

One suggestion for the competition IT people & for the labels is whether it would be possible to link pictures taken of poured entries to a contestants results. One of my judges remarked that a picture of a poured beer would paint a thousand words. If we could do this I think it would help people understand handwritten feedback also.

Shanna

Quote from: molc on March 10, 2015, 07:51:39 AM
I'm actually going to use pet bottles next year as its much easier to get from the keg. Cheap as chips and reseable...

This is actually not allowed. 500ml brown glass bottles, with no identifying labels, this is MEGA important !!
-  Youd be surprised at some of the bottles we get !

But we should have had a bench-capper there on the night. I forgot it - in fairness Kellie flagged it from Galway and I had it on a list
so hands up on that one.


Lads,

We dont need to re-invent the wheel here.

AHA, UK, Sweden, We all do it the same. I woke up at 4am this morning with endless thoughts about this 3rd bottle !

Its important that we stick to the standard rules. We are right on the limit of what we can manage here, if we are honest - we are probably over the limit and some people are pushed way more that they should be, I'm real afraid some of them wont do it next year.

The reality is that only 12 people responded to the labelling 'shout-out' for 900 bottles.

I posted all most of the entries this morning, and I know John drove to meath yesterday (3 hour round trip) with all the crates.

I know no-one is having a go at the organizers here and they are only trying to help / put forward suggestions

but the title 'some issues' suggests some things are wrong which isnt a great message to be sending straight after the event.


I think a meetup is a little better as the tone of ideas presented is so much better.



Peace and love to all !

Quote from: Partridge9 on March 10, 2015, 08:56:00 AM

Quote from: molc on March 10, 2015, 07:51:39 AM
I'm actually going to use pet bottles next year as its much easier to get from the keg. Cheap as chips and resealble...

This is actually not allowed. 500ml brown glass bottles, with no identifying labels, this is MEGA important !!
-  Youd be surprised at some of the bottles we get !

Bugger. :) About to do a golden ale at 4 Vol/Co2 and terrified of putting that in glass.

Anyway, back on topic, if you want a meet about it, just put forward a time and a venue in town and have at it with the peps. Always good to have a wrap up meeting after any big event and like you say, personal tone counts for a lot when giving critique.

Quote from: Partridge9 on March 10, 2015, 08:56:00 AM


AHA, UK, Sweden, We all do it the same. I woke up at 4am this morning with endless thoughts about this 3rd bottle !

Its important that we stick to the standard rules.

I'm glad you brought this up. It's certainly mentioned in the BJCP rules. There are 2 bottle competitions and 3 bottle competitions. Others in the US I have spoken to were surprised we only have 2 bottles for something as big as the nationals.

The cascade brewers (http://cascadecup.azurewebsites.net/index.php?section=entry) (USA) just did a 280 entry competition and their rules are:

QuoteEach entry will consist of three 12 ounce capped bottles that are void of all identifying information, including labels and embossing. Printed caps are allowed, but must be blacked out completely.

To be more specific, the AHA nationals require:

QuoteHow many bottles do I need?
Send two (2) bottles for each entry competing in the First Round. One bottle is used for the score sheet judging, the second bottle will be used for entries advancing to the mini-best-of-show judging to determine the category winners.

Three (3) additional bottles will be required for each entry that advances to the Final Round competition in June. One bottle is used for the score sheet judging, the second bottle will be used for entries advancing to the mini-best-of-show judging to determine the category winners, and the third bottle will be used for the best-of-show beer, mead, or cider if your entry placed first in its category.

If I read that correctly, they really require 5 bottles overall. They split their rounds further apart. That would cut down on immediate bottle issues but require more overall time as once round 1 is over, round 2 bottle collection begins.

I don't mean to be anal about this but we are not doing things the way it's recommended by BJCP or what other associations do. Not even close.

I think we are outgrowing our logistical capabilities.
Also I know that the same tired old faces have organised the first 3 comps and they will be standing down.

It is time for a rethink along the lines of the US National model:

Regional heats:

Enter 3 bottles
These are judged locally and the top 3 from each category (or one or two if thats all that was entered) go forward (2 bottles) to the Nationals.

If there are say 4 regional events then that means at most 12 beers per category for the Nat. Finals.

It will cut down HUGHly on the need to drive bottles of beer around the country.

What think ye?

Do we have enough judges regionally? I'd say it could get very incestuous with out very careful handling.

Will, for an old codger, you talk an awful lot of sense sometimes  :P

All joking aside, this sounds like something we may need to look at.

That leaves one big day out where the entrants can show up for the ceremony. The BOS event.

The idea of a BJCP sanctioned competition is education. Giving the entrants feedback on how to improve their beer. This has to be at the heart of what we do.

Regionals is a non runner until we have 70+ BJCP judges on this island.

We are not of the size where regionals need to be even thought about. Limiting entry numbers is a far easier and practical way to deal with our bottle number problems.

The method we use has been tested over 30 years in the states and beyond.
It works.

There is some luck in where your beer is judged in a flight but there is no bias and everyone's beer is treated alike.

We had some issues this year as judges finished a whole bottle of beer in round 1. That is unacceptable.

What is more pertinent is how can we make sure the  judges give better feedback. Some of the score sheets were very poor and these were from judges who did the BJCP course.

Quote from: Saruman on March 10, 2015, 09:17:16 AM

The cascade brewers (http://cascadecup.azurewebsites.net/index.php?section=entry) (USA) just did a 280 entry competition and their rules are:

QuoteEach entry will consist of three 12 ounce capped bottles that are void of all identifying information, including labels and embossing. Printed caps are allowed, but must be blacked out completely.

QuoteHow many bottles do I need?
Send two (2) bottles for each entry competing in the First Round. One bottle is used for the score sheet judging, the second bottle will be used for entries advancing to the mini-best-of-show judging to determine the category winners.

12oz = ~350ml x 3 bottles = ~1L or 2 x500ml bottles as per our rules.

I'm guessing that our Nationals are somewhat equivalent in size to a regional feeder event in the US, so their First Round rules are probably more appropriate.

QuoteDo we have enough judges regionally?

When would you schedule the events, e.g. over a couple of weeks in February, would there be enough judges to get to all clubs.

If spread over a number of weeks, with a BOS held 3/4 weeks later (when all clubs have held their events), the beers that were brewed to time the conditioning for maximum freshness/hoppiness would be at a disadvantage for a beer judged by the first club maybe 6/7 weeks earlier, than one judged by the last club.

By having a singular judging date as current it gives a level playing field for all brewers.

Sorry Pob, I'm guessing you haven't read the other posts. The volume is irrelevant. It's opening a fresh bottle each tasting that I see a need for. The fact we mostly use 500ml bottles doesn't matter.

It's one of those things that has progressively annoyed me for the last 4 days (two competitions) of national level judging I have been a part of.

Looking at the different Category's which ones would have benefited from an extra bottle not withstanding Saruman's point about freshness.  :-\

Quote from: Partridge9 on March 10, 2015, 08:56:00 AM
-  Youd be surprised at some of the bottles we get !

Out of the 12 beers I judged:
- 3 had distinctive markings/writing on the crown caps
- 2 were in clear, tall swingtop bottles (!)

Thankfully, none of those beers made it to mini-BOS and so we didn't have to disqualify them. Why aren't people reading the guidelines before submitting beer?? I just don't get it..  :-[

Getting back to what Thomas said:

QuotePerhaps, as a compromise the 3rd bottle should only be required for the bigger categories e.g. Stouts, American Ales. Basically, the ones who then have a mini BOS. Failing that, judges should be advised to leave enough in the bottle for the mini BOS.

Not all categories should need a 3rd bottle, only the ones we know will require a mini BOS.

Quote from: Bubbles on March 10, 2015, 10:28:39 AM

Quote from: Partridge9 on March 10, 2015, 08:56:00 AM
-  Youd be surprised at some of the bottles we get !

Out of the 12 beers I judged:
- 3 had distinctive markings/writing on the crown caps
- 2 were in clear, tall swingtop bottles (!)

Thankfully, none of those beers made it to mini-BOS and so we didn't have to disqualify them. Why aren't people reading the guidelines before submitting beer?? I just don't get it..  :-[

Writing on the caps can be dealt with. I can understand some people like to label an entire batch so they can identify bottles in storage. Next year I'll bring a permanent black marker or something and cover any caps that are identifiable.

There were 3 or 4 bottles that were in bottles similar to Bulmers/Spaten with lots of gold foil plus there was one Smithwick's Pale Ale bottle with the full label intact. No excuse for the Smithwicks one as those labels peel off really easy. There was also one 750ml bottle I think we need to draw the line somewhere here and just say these bottles don't make it past the bottle sorting from next year onwards.

Agree on the bottle types. 3 years on and there is no reason that people entering should not know that the type of bottle is clearly defined :).

Anyone heading to the London & South East beer festival?

http://londonandsoutheast.brewcompetition.com/

It's the biggest regional in the uk, and the scale is about the same as the uk nationals.

Unusually there is a big guest element. Joe public pays an entrance fee and can sample the entries.

In order to provide this, competition entrants must provide 1 bottle for judging, and another 4 for the public.

Logistically that's over 1000 bottles of beer when there are around 200 entries.

If anyone is about, we could share some tricks? Reply here or PM me, we could get you into the non public session, especially if you are willing to steward or judge

We disqualified a number of bottles this year for not removing labels and not following the rules just in case anyone was interested to know.

I think someone suggested it but any cons?

What about 2 bottles for competition, one for judging, one for mini-bos but with an understanding that the brewer must provide a 3rd bottle on request for BOS if they wish to progress that far.

The brewer keeps it in reserve. If it gets that far, they have the option of providing it in the weeks between round 1 and 2.

Quote from: Saruman on March 10, 2015, 10:20:52 AM
Sorry Pob, I'm guessing you haven't read the other posts. The volume is irrelevant. It's opening a fresh bottle each tasting that I see a need for. The fact we mostly use 500ml bottles doesn't matter.

It's one of those things that has progressively annoyed me for the last 4 days (two competitions) of national level judging I have been a part of.

I totally appreciate the freshness part, I thought that the recapping issue was the suggested solution.

The volume is quite relevant, it is to do with non-distinct, anonymous bottles in a practical size to keep the judging as anonymous and fair for all.

As 1 Litre is the volume required for judging, there are really only 3 x 330ml or 2 x 500ml as options.

The 500ml bottle issue mainly relates to the logistics of hauling 3 x 500ml per entry, essentially another 1/2 trailer load per judging location and the fact it would be the common bottling size in use by both commercial and homebrewers. If 12oz/355ml was the prevelent size available here, then it would be probably the size used both by homebrewers and competition.

This year there were 452 entries, so over 900 bottles, make that 3 bottles it becomes over 1,350 - lots of extra work in bottle sorting.

If there was a third bottle requirement, until all the beers were registered, we wouldn't know which required a mini-BOS extra bottle, i.e. a category with 8 entries mightn't need it, a larger category like stouts with 47 would. Then a follow up email, back to the entrant requested a third bottle would have to be submitted.

At bottle sorting, an extra layer of "Does this entry have 2 or 3 bottles?", would be a nightmare. Does a beer missing the 3rd bottle get eleminated for this? What happens when people just send in 3 bottles just in case, more sorting, and waste disposal required.

A system that everyone follows is fairest to all, when managing such a large event with limited resources by volunteers giving up their time will always have compromises, by debriefing & improving the process year on year, it tries to maintain a level field for all entrants.

Going forward most categories will have a mini bos. Even categories where 1 table was doing the whole thing can have a mini bos. This happened quite a bit this year as there was very close scoring.

On the issue of having a paying public I think we would run into issues with Revenue as this is homebrew :(

That would be covered by this no?
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/rates/decision-detail-03183.jsp

It's explained in the remarks. Social clubs and non profit organisations. Vat needed on bar and food.

John looked in to it for Beoir in the beginning. All good there and I see no reason for NHC to be any different.

Anyway, that's off topic. Fees for competitions, not so much:
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/rates/decision-detail-03355.jsp

I realise I am late to the party and Will_D has succinctly stated most of my points bu..... I'd started off line so I'll finish.


1.   The volume of entries needs to be considered as primarally  it leads to Judging fatigue and are we giving the 1st and the 25th beer equal appraisal. I realize that we don't want to preclude entries but both this year and last more than one a Judge said to me I hope this is a good one, somewhat implying that the last one wasn't, and this makes Judging difficult and speeds up palate fatigue. I don't think that our National Competition should be used as the first point of contact for getting feedback on a beer. At National level we should be judging, and expecting, the Best. I realize it may put additional pressures on our system but there would be benefits to a prequalification at Club or province level,  a Club or Provence probably won't up score a entrant as it would reflect badly. It would be interesting to look at the statistics of points scored over the past few years to see where our average is and perhaps could be the cutoff point for qualification to the next National Event. It is a National Event and should showcase our best, not whatever is under the stairs. Is there any other National Event (in any field, including the green ones!!!) that doesn't require prequalification?  It would: reduce the volume of beers at the National Event potentially facilitating the 3 bottle requirement. Increase our Judges, both in numbers and Judging frequencies as they would get opportunities to critically asses a Beer and give feed back to the Brewer directly throughout the year. They could also mentor locally to bring on new judges and demystify the black art of judging. Not too many Club meets use the BJCP score sheet to assess a beer but perhaps it could be done on a more regular basis.

2.   Increase the entry fee. A lot of people, put a lot of effort, into organizing and running the competition which should be valued. Granted this should not be a revenue generating exercise, but if we value our beer enough to be appraised by National and International Judges we should be prepared to fund it appropriately. Key people should have their costs covered Committee/International Judges/ Pro Brewer Judges (if necessary) and it may fund a few other prizes like the amazo one this year.  Another interesting statistic would be: what were the average number of entries per entrant and were there many high volume individuals. Granted what's high volume? The statistics would perhaps tell a different story.

3.   We try to make the process as anonymous as possible but there are failings. We should designate a competition bottle and cap that entrants order from the Homebrew shops. Anything else gets put aside at sorting. This year and last there was such a variety of bottles and some had very distinguishing marks and as stewards we had to make subjective decisions on distinguishing marks/lables/tags/caps. Nobody wants a bottle to be disqualified and Stewards had to, as well as their other jobs, scrape/remove distinguishing marks.  We buy the best of ingredients to make our beers, surely we can buy a competition standard bottle to showcase our efforts.
4.   There should be a Media blackout for the duration of the days competition by all Judges and Stewards, or as a minimum a designated Tweeter and Facebooker on the Competition staff to give an impartial and appropriate update of the days proceeding's to keep people informed. Obviously this will be hard to police on the day, it is a free country!!! but if the rule was there I believe it would be adhered to.
5.   Judges should move categories from year to year. This is perhaps the hardest due to the limitations we have on numbers of Judges, but again in an attempt to improve our Judging panels experience and depth of knowledge it would take them out of their comfort zone and ensure they refresh their skills. I am guessing..... but it feels like there are people that will only judge a particular category and the rest have to fill in around them and do the required research for the category that they have been given.  I know this will be a hard one to implement and there will always be exceptions but it is a effort to broaden the skill set.


I offer no apologies for the above other that the mad ramblings of an Interested Brewer, Steward and Want to be Judge!     

Some interesting points, and I agree for the most part.

I believe that the nationals should only receive entries from beers that have already gone through a regional or club contest. Only medal winning beers or beer over a certain score should be considered. We could require submission of the BJCP score sheet for said competition. It would not only verify eligibility, it could be used to compare to the scoresheet from the national competition in order to help with calibration. If I was judging in the nationals, I would like to know later on that my scoresheet is not too dissimilar to the original. Things can happen, beer can change over time but it would still be useful.

Regarding special bottles. That's not really practical as it means all brewers would have to brew for competition and bottle accordingly. It would be fine for keg brewers but not for bottle brewers.

Quote from: Saruman on March 10, 2015, 02:38:20 PM

Regarding special bottles. That's not really practical as it means all brewers would have to brew for competition and bottle accordingly. It would be fine for keg brewers but not for bottle brewers.

Not sure why it wouldn't work. As a mostly bottling brewer  I could easily fill 4 or 6 bottles from each batch that I made, and set aside as potential competition entries. If they don't make the grade  they get put back in general population!!! 

Not everyone is as organised as you  ;)

Quote from: Damien M on March 10, 2015, 02:25:35 PM


3.   We try to make the process as anonymous as possible but there are failings. We should designate a competition bottle and cap that entrants order from the Homebrew shops. Anything else gets put aside at sorting. This year and last there was such a variety of bottles and some had very distinguishing marks and as stewards we had to make subjective decisions on distinguishing marks/lables/tags/caps. Nobody wants a bottle to be disqualified and Stewards had to, as well as their other jobs, scrape/remove distinguishing marks.  We buy the best of ingredients to make our beers, surely we can buy a competition standard bottle to showcase our efforts.
 

Can custom NHC bottlecaps be printed? If so maybe give, say, 100 NHC branded caps as part of the members fee each year along with the membership card and you must use these caps for your entries with no exceptions. The only drawback to this (assuming it can be done and done cheaply) is it excludes non-paying members....but its a good excuse for them to sign up  ;)

This also excludes international members. Did we have any this year?

Why if they are a member?

Custom caps are unnecessary, if anyone puts a marker or whatever on the cap this can be covered very easily with a marker by myself. It's only the people who use very distinct bottle shapes/fail to take the labels off who are causing the trouble here.

Quote from: Saruman on March 10, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Not everyone is as organised as you  ;)

You haven't seen the state of my Brewshed :P :P

Possible solution:
>have all the judges judge the 1 cat at the same time (lets say there are 10 judging tables of 2 people)
>start with the largest cats (eg IPA with 40 enteries)
>So every judging table gets 4 beers and that category is finsihed very quickly leading to a quicl mini BOS judged by 2 judges
>the next largest cat goes ahead with the remaining 9 judging tables doing the same thing.

This has a number of advantages with taking only one set of bottles out of the cold room at a given time, beers are kept fresh and no need to put them back and forth to the crate. Wraps everything up nice and quick for people dealing with the papet work after too. Beers can be dumped sooner too unlike the all at the end scenario.

Interesting idea and it would only be necessary for the large categories. Get them out of the way early.

Not a bad idea! Only issue I see is if you get all the judges to do the American Ales and Stouts first would their taste buds not be shot when it comes to judging light beers like the lagers?

Your taste buds are fine if you were only drinking 3 or 4 samples. The only complication I see is what happens with the miniBOS in that case? Does each pair submit their top two (rather than 3) leading to a miniBOS with 10 beers assuming 5 pairs of judges?

Quote from: shiny on March 10, 2015, 10:22:10 PM
Your taste buds are fine if you were only drinking 3 or 4 samples. The only complication I see is what happens with the miniBOS in that case? Does each pair submit their top two (rather than 3) leading to a miniBOS with 10 beers assuming 5 pairs of judges?

The initial suggestion was for 10 tables (20 judges) - each judge 4 beers and say put 2 forward (max) - they could put 1 or even none through - thats a max 20 for miniBos

20 in a miniBOS ?

Quote from: shiny on March 10, 2015, 10:41:59 PM
20 in a miniBOS ?

I know judges score things differently but surely all the scores together at the end should mean that the top 5 or 6 be choosen. I know this year in the ipas only 3 beers scored over 40 and 6 over 35 so i dont think it would be so hard. It looked to me that actually loads of beers got to mini BOS simply because there wasnt that many good beers. There was even debates with some cats that none of the beers deserved a medal at all!

I wouldn't get bogged down in the numbers they are just an example lads. It was more the idea of getting more judging tables to plow through the big  cats first. From what i saw its all about getting rid of the bad flawed beers which are the majority!

Quote from: DCBrewing on March 10, 2015, 09:13:05 PM
Possible solution:
>have all the judges judge the 1 cat at the same time (lets say there are 10 judging tables of 2 people)
>start with the largest cats (eg IPA with 40 enteries)
>So every judging table gets 4 beers and that category is finsihed very quickly leading to a quicl mini BOS judged by 2 judges

Shinny: This was the original suggestion.  It implies that the 10 tables would quickly taste 40 beers and knock out 20 at minimum. If there was only one worthy beer then only that one would go through.

I am not sure if it the best idea as 20 beers is a lot for a mini-Bos

You could count out a lot more just take the top 5/6 from all the scores.

QuoteBOS?

Best of show  ;)

Quote from: Tube on March 11, 2015, 11:59:29 AM

Quote from: mrmeindl on March 11, 2015, 11:52:47 AM
BOS?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdcsD5EYKrJOAwqPahK4w63IgxKBTS-7s0uMCuUXJrYhp7_bj_)

your missing an S ;D

Quoteyour missing an S ;D

Found it !!!

(http://www.emoticonswallpapers.com/avatar/logos/Superman-Blue-Logo.gif)

I've read over this thread a bit - some of it at a glance so if I'm repeating anyone's point - just take it as a re-iteration.

There seems to be an attitude at the moment that when the national's are mentioned at a club meet or brewday, and time & time again I always hear something along the lines of:

"Have you any beers on for the National Comp?"
"No, but have a few there I might just throw in, just to see where they come" Or "Yeah, it's not great but a least I'll get some feedback"

Seems to be a lot of entries are just chancing their arm.. I could have done that myself with a few beers I had but IMO when something carries a calibre of a "National Competition" I would believe that everyone should be bringing their A-game to the table.


This will sound like a "re-invent the wheel" solution  (sorry James) so I'm anticipating to be told to get my coat, but hear me out.

New BJCP Styles/Guidelines are being sgned off at the end of the month and my understanding is that there's going to be a lot more styles in there. If we go with this, even for 2017, ultimately it's going to affect the overall logistics.

So how about over the course of 2016, instead of having a regional, local clubs could be assigned a number of categories and host their own competitions for everyone to enter across the country (We do this already to a certain extent  - Galway's IPA Fest, GCB's Red ale, etc..) and if entries that score EG:38+ points at a club level, they can qualify to enter a beer in the same category to the Nationals in 2017. The Beer doesn't have to be that same batch you brewed for the club comp (but can be if preferred) - just the same style.

The point here is you've earned your slot in the Nationals - limiting the number of "casually entered beers" (for lack of a better term) and can afford to take a third bottle for BOS.
It will also make the Nationals a more prestigious event overall so having an entry in will be an achievement in itself.

While it might  be adding a level of complexity to the over all competition, from the organisers perspective, the fact that the club comps organizing can be delegated to interested clubs it's still Business as Usual for organizing the Nationals - just might need to validate an entry against a club result here & there. . Could also add a rule that if you got a medal last year, you automatically get into the National's next year in the same category.

Benefits:
Clubs hold more local competitions where possible
An added prestigious status to the Nationals
An even higher quality of entries in the Nationals
Less casual entries, bring more room for more bottles

Drawbacks:
Require's buy-in from local clubs


Anyway - that's my 2cents on this, probably a ludicrously controversial idea (aka a load of BS) in some folks eyes but worth putting it out there in case it caught someone's eye. Maybe not for next year but 2017+.

If the competition is supposed to be about education surely part of that is educating those of us who might be a bit *ahem* cellar blind from time to time?

In terms of logistics. If you look at the stats from last year and the year before it's striking that 20% of the entrants entered 43% of the beers in 2013 and that was up to over 49% in 2014.

A cap on the number of entries per brewer would force entrants themselves to be selective about what they enter.

Quote from: mr hoppy on March 11, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
If the competition is supposed to be about education surely part of that is educating those of us who might be a bit *ahem* cellar blind from time to time?

In terms of logistics. If you look at the stats from last year and the year before it's striking that 20% of the entrants entered 43% of the beers in 2013 and that was up to over 49% in 2014.

A cap on the number of entries per brewer would force entrants themselves to be selective about what they enter.

Definitely agree with that!!!

Quote from: mr hoppy on March 11, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
A cap on the number of entries per brewer would force entrants themselves to be selective about what they enter.

What about brewers who score consistently high scores across the board?

Quote from: irish_goat on March 11, 2015, 02:29:14 PM

Quote from: mr hoppy on March 11, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
A cap on the number of entries per brewer would force entrants themselves to be selective about what they enter.

What about brewers who score consistently high scores across the board?

Simple, they should be looking to enter their best styles that they'd be confident in winning overall BOS with their limited entries

At least that would be my goal if I was a consistent category winner. 

An individual entering loads of beers is no guarantee of a win.

Take my mate, for instance. He loves puns and creating pun-related sentences. One day his local paper ran a competition looking for the best pun. He had made so many good puns he decided to enter ten of his best puns under ten different assumed names. He was 100% confident that at least one of his ten puns would win, but in the end no pun in ten did.

_{Where's the 'Cancel forum Subscription' button again?}

-Barry

Best thing I've read all day!

Quote from: irish_goat on March 11, 2015, 02:29:14 PM

Quote from: mr hoppy on March 11, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
A cap on the number of entries per brewer would force entrants themselves to be selective about what they enter.

What about brewers who score consistently high scores across the board?

I agree with both of you. There are also 24+ categories with 3-6 subcategories within those so limiting to 1 per sub cat could still leave someone with 50 entries. A good brewer could nail 15 -20 of those styles no problem and perhaps they want an objective view of these... All of which might be medal winning.   

Quote from: Rossa on March 11, 2015, 03:52:41 PM

Quote from: irish_goat on March 11, 2015, 02:29:14 PM

Quote from: mr hoppy on March 11, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
A cap on the number of entries per brewer would force entrants themselves to be selective about what they enter.

What about brewers who score consistently high scores across the board?

I agree with both of you. There are also 24+ categories with 3-6 subcategories within those so limiting to 1 per sub cat could still leave someone with 50 entries. A good brewer could nail 15 -20 of those styles no problem and perhaps they want an objective view of these... All of which might be medal winning.

I think there is a difference between an objective view of a beer and looking for a medal at a national event. If you have 20 medal winning beers what do 20 medals prove.?? Thinking about Hingos comment about if you win this year it gives you a direct buy to the National event the following year, perhaps we should preclude the winners from entering next year in the category they won! It would push all brewers to improve, in all styles and reduce the Blanket Bombing approach to competition.

I think by the time you are able to nail medals on a fair percentage of 20 beers your sensory analysis skills are probably going to be good enough that your past the stage of needing feedback to a large degree except maybe when trying out something new.

Not saying anything against the folks that are in it for the medals - that's part of the fun and those I've met have been really nice folks as well - but I don't think it's fair to knock those of us who are mostly in it for the feedback either.

Sorry - I just so Rossa's comment there. I was thinking of an overall cap per brewer, not a cap per category - e.g. each brewer can only enter X beers in the competition.

And again as someone said previously I'm only making a suggestion and I respect that many folks here have made a huge contribution and have greater ownership / commitment than the likes of myself.

I say let people enter as much as they want. The competition has a limit i believe and its never gotten to capacity yet

Quote from: Bazza on March 11, 2015, 02:40:55 PM
An individual entering loads of beers is no guarantee of a win.

Take my mate, for instance. He loves puns and creating pun-related sentences. One day his local paper ran a competition looking for the best pun. He had made so many good puns he decided to enter ten of his best puns under ten different assumed names. He was 100% confident that at least one of his ten puns would win, but in the end no pun in ten did.

_{Where's the 'Cancel forum Subscription' button again?}

-Barry

The man is pure genius!

Quote from: mr hoppy on March 11, 2015, 04:44:49 PM
I think by the time you are able to nail medals on a fair percentage of 20 beers your sensory analysis skills are probably going to be good enough that your past the stage of needing feedback to a large degree except maybe when trying out something new.

Not saying anything against the folks that are in it for the medals - that's part of the fun and those I've met have been really nice folks as well - but I don't think it's fair to knock those of us who are mostly in it for the feedback either.

I'm all for the feedback but I don't think we should be using the Nationals as a feedback mechanism. Do countys send it's team to Croake Park for feedback? I realise the NHC is a new organisation and still finding its feet but we should be looking to the future rather than the now.

We  should have a facility where a brewer can send a beer or 20 ??? to someone to get feedback either via their local club or a network of BJCP judges.  We are starting to get quite a panel of judges both qualified and in training that, for a  fixed price donation to the club, ( non profit of course)  could get formal and constructive feedback on their beer. The Club meets are great for general opinions on a beer but are very general. Perhaps Clubs could designate a quarterly meet that would use the BJCP scoresheet to give feedback.       

I think a lot of the feedback should come at club level. If you have a beer you are particularity happy with it should be brought to a club meet up and blind tasted. 10-20 mins could easily be put aside at local meet up to do a proper score sheet. More formal then the pass the bottle to the left we all know and love.
If a beer I brewed was scored a 20 at a local meetup it would put me off entering it to any competition.

Currently, there's club meets and the national, with some smaller contests throughout the year (are these BJCP events btw?) If I want good feedback done by a qualified judge, then my options are quite limited. If you are outside of Dublin, then those options get even smaller.

If we want to do more regional/club judging to BJCP standard, then we're going to have to get a lot more people, at club level, out there and organising these things. I suspect this is what could stop the idea dead in it's tracks.

Quote from: nigel_c on March 12, 2015, 09:48:32 AM
I think a lot of the feedback should come at club level. If you have a beer you are particularity happy with it should be brought to a club meet up and blind tasted. 10-20 mins could easily be put aside at local meet up to do a proper score sheet. More formal then the pass the bottle to the left we all know and love.
If a beer I brewed was scored a 20 at a local meetup it would put me off entering it to any competition.

Scored and blind tested by a qualified judging panel, same as in the nationals. I wholeheartedly support this.

Quote from: molc on March 12, 2015, 09:53:49 AM

If we want to do more regional/club judging to BJCP standard, then we're going to have to get a lot more people, at club level, out there and organising these things. I suspect this is what could stop the idea dead in it's tracks.

Yep, if it was to be a runner, local clubs would need to buy into the idea and take up organizing. If Judges are an issue encourage doing the BJCP courses or look outside your region of any one will volunteer to judge on the day.

Where there's a will there's a way, and it's nothing a bit of strategic planning and commitment won't sort

Quote from: Hingo on March 12, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
If Judges are an issue encourage doing the BJCP courses or look outside your region of any one will volunteer to judge on the day.

There's a whole list of us wanting to do the course, just no-one has taken charge of organising it. I'm on strike after doing the last group buy :D

Quote from: Hingo on March 12, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
Yep, if it was to be a runner, local clubs would need to buy into the idea and take up organizing. If Judges are an issue encourage doing the BJCP courses or look outside your region of any one will volunteer to judge on the day.

Where there's a will there's a way, and it's nothing a bit of strategic planning and commitment won't sort

Speaking of which, theres 25 people with their name down to do the course this year, the thread has been running since last November. Any movement? Anything I can help with to move it forward?

Quote from: phoenix on March 12, 2015, 10:06:12 AM

Quote from: Hingo on March 12, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
Yep, if it was to be a runner, local clubs would need to buy into the idea and take up organizing. If Judges are an issue encourage doing the BJCP courses or look outside your region of any one will volunteer to judge on the day.

Where there's a will there's a way, and it's nothing a bit of strategic planning and commitment won't sort

Speaking of which, theres 25 people with their name down to do the course this year, the thread has been running since last November. Any movement? Anything I can help with to move it forward?

Yep. we are nearly ready to announce something.

Great stuff Rossa

I don't think Feedback to a BJCP standard should be blind. It's not a competition its feedback to make you a better brewer, and the more info the the Feedbacker has on equipment, ingredients, process the better the feed back would be.

As regards who should organise this :o 8) ??? Do I hear tumble weed????
First steps is to agree a process at national level. Which will allow/direct/force clubs to  adopt a more formalised approach to competition entries.The pass the bottle left will always have a place but the competitions need a structure. All of this discussion will drive a topic for the AGM!
I would suggest there should be a fee for these Feedback sessions to improve local club funds/cover costs of invited Judges etc and to value what your are getting . For those without clubs or for people who want a opinion on a Style a registar of Judges that are prepared to give feedback would not be hard to setup but again a fee ( non Profit) to National coffers for the service which would fund National Events and Training. If you value your hardwork to make the beer a fee to value the Feedbackers opinion is not a lot to ask.   

Quote from: Rossa on March 12, 2015, 10:26:54 AM

Quote from: phoenix on March 12, 2015, 10:06:12 AM

Quote from: Hingo on March 12, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
Yep, if it was to be a runner, local clubs would need to buy into the idea and take up organizing. If Judges are an issue encourage doing the BJCP courses or look outside your region of any one will volunteer to judge on the day.

Where there's a will there's a way, and it's nothing a bit of strategic planning and commitment won't sort

Speaking of which, theres 25 people with their name down to do the course this year, the thread has been running since last November. Any movement? Anything I can help with to move it forward?

Yep. we are nearly ready to announce something.

I have a venue lined up but with the competition and the conference it's a balancing act. More on it soon.

The issue of BJCP judge feedback is a bit of a red herring here IMO. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), the score sheets  from the national competition aren't all completed by BJCP judges. Also, BJCP feedback is really only advantageous if your sole interest is winning a medal in a BJCP style category.

If you want to improve your beer do your homework and then take it to a meet. Have it tasted and get feedback ask questions and discuss your process (especially from those who have made good examples of the style).

Why not increase the entry fee to €10 (or more?) per beer and use the entry fee to fund the logistics of running the competition. It will act as a natural inhibitor to people sending stuff through for a bit of feedback.

For proper BJCP feedback a system could be set up where anybody who wants a particular beer judged are given a judge fro a list of wlling tasters. The BJCP judge judge are posted a bottle , they judge and score accordingly and a small fee is sent on to the NHC.
This would make BJCP standard scoring and feedback available all year round.
I'm sure a lot f judges would be happy to gt more experience and who doesn't like getting beermail.

Quote from: imark on March 12, 2015, 11:38:21 AM
The issue of BJCP judge feedback is a bit of a red herring here IMO. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), the score sheets  from the national competition aren't all completed by BJCP judges. Also, BJCP feedback is really only advantageous if your sole interest is winning a medal in a BJCP style category.

If you want to improve your beer do your homework and then take it to a meet. Have it tasted and get feedback ask questions and discuss your process (especially from those who have made good examples of the style).

Why not increase the entry fee to €10 (or more?) per beer and use the entry fee to fund the logistics of running the competition. It will act as a natural inhibitor to people sending stuff through for a bit of feedback.

Agree you you on all counts.
All I was trying to say that in the absence of a process the BJCP score sheet gives a good method of defining where a beer is good and not so! You don't have to be a Certified Judge to benefit from it.   

Quote from: nigel_c on March 12, 2015, 12:11:54 PM
For proper BJCP feedback a system could be set up where anybody who wants a particular beer judged are given a judge fro a list of wlling tasters. The BJCP judge judge are posted a bottle , they judge and score accordingly and a small fee is sent on to the NHC.
This would make BJCP standard scoring and feedback available all year round.
I'm sure a lot f judges would be happy to gt more experience and who doesn't like getting beermail.

Plus one on this one!!
A register of interested Feedbackers would help everybody and you would only have to commit for a quarter or 6 months or take your name off the list when it no longer suits.

BeerMail is the name for it!  :D ;D 

On feedback - I'd agree that the first stop for feedback is your local club if you have one, but I thought the letters that went out with the scoresheets this year and last included a comment along the lines that the recipient should use the advice in the scoresheets to make better beer?

Hey Guys have scoresheets been posted out? Need to find out what went wrong mostly!

I received my sheets yesterday I think .

Quote from: mkav79 on March 12, 2015, 08:11:52 PM
Hey Guys have scoresheets been posted out? Need to find out what went wrong mostly!

Yeap, all posted out. If you PM your real name I can double check for ya.

Hey thanks, it just arrived in the letterbox at lunch

Sweet !

Thanks for entering !