Alt ‘n’ Bock Illuminator

By Tom Altenbach

Preliminary Round Judging for Competitions

Here is my philosophy on judging the preliminary round for the BABO. I believe this approach is applicable to any state or local competition where the number of entries in a class varies from about 13 to 30. For less than 13 entries, no preliminary round is necessary. For more than 30, two sessions are needed to handle the class, but similar techniques could be adopted here too.

There are 3 objectives for the judging.

1. Divide the entries into two groups, the consolation group and the finals group. The 3 best entries must be included in the finals group.

2. Provide complete score sheets for all entries in the consolation group. (Doing this also for the finals group is a waste of time since the 1st round sheets are normally not given back to the brewers for entries reaching the finals in a state or local competition.)

3. Adjust the finals group to a reasonable size. I suggest a maximum = 12, minimum = 4, target median = 10. To require the finals judges to handle more than 12 will reduce the quality of the judging and alienate the experienced judges that all competitions depend upon. To judge less than 4 is a waste of the judges’ time and effort in showing up for the competition. A reasonable number to shoot for in the final flight is 10.

It is not necessary to rank order all entries, therefore there can be some overlap in quality of entries between the best of the consolation group and the worst of the finals group. In practice, some from the consolation group could score higher than the scores given some from the finals group in the second round. This is okay. It does not matter which group an entry is placed into if it scores near the consolation/finals cutoff, since entries of that caliber are extremely unlikely to challenge for the top 3 places. I have judged many finals rounds and I’ve found that the top 3 are always significantly superior to those near the bottom. This difference is even more apparent in a preliminary round.

Once agreed on the above objectives, here is a plan to handle the 13 to 30 entries efficiently. Divide them arbitrarily into groups of 4 to 6 per group. For example, a flight of 17 would be divided into 4 groups (4+4+4+5). Judge one group at a time. For each group, pour the first bottle, sample aroma and taste, make notes on aroma since it dissipates rapidly, then quickly go on to the next bottle. When the last of the group has been tasted, the panel discusses their impressions and reaches a consensus on pass or fail for each entry in the group. The goal is to identify those from each group to drop to the consolation bracket. For the example of 17, we would expect to find 1 or 2 from each group to drop. The judges then independently write up the complete score sheets for the consolation entries for the group, discuss, and adjust scores if necessary. Before moving on to the next group, also write down brief impressions of the entries passing to the finals, and a rough score. This information is not passed on to the brewer, but could aid the judges if they wish to retaste any entries. This could happen if the balance in numbers between the consolation/finals groups gets out of whack, for example if the overall quality of the entries is very good or very bad. Also keep track of all the bottles & glasses as judging proceeds, just in case any entries need to be re-evaluated later.

If all goes well, the 3 goals will be met in a reasonable time frame, and the judges won’t have to try to split hairs comparing the 23rd pale ale directly to the 1st one of the session. Now it’s on to the competition. Good luck to all entrants, and thanks to all judges, stewards, helpers, and of course Competition Director John Pyles.

Thanks also go to Bob Jones for collaboration on developing this approach.