2012 UK National Homebrew Competition

[barney]

Congratulations to the winning brewers, some fantastic brews.

Commiserations to the also rans.

Well done to Ali and the Bristol group for getting the show on the road. I hope that there is some National press coverage of such a great event, its a pity Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall doesnt brew it would get a TV Show .

A memorable event and a pleasure to meet so many of the forumites, both new acquaintances and old friends.

[Aleman]

I really can't think of a better way to spend a Saturday, but drinking beer, and talking brewing with some serious beer geeks . . . without anyone complaining about it

[BrotherLogic]

Any chance of all the scores being released at any point? Just curious about the score distributions within each category (I'm a stats nerd )

They won't be released beyond those that are yours. The main reason for this is that scores and placings are not always in direct correlation in large categories judged by multiple panels that then carry out a mini-best of show at the table to determine placings. It's also worth remembering that judging is a highly subjective practice and the score is what that judge on that day gave it. From a statistical point of view, an analysis doesn't really serve much purpose that I can see. Competitions don't normally give out the data.

And then there's the ugly issue of data protection.

That's a shame - it would be a good thing to know e.g. where my beer placed in relation to the rest of the field for example. And for this year, what was the tightest fought category - I think there's a lot of interesting bits of information in there. Data protection is not really an issue since you'd only need to know the score and the category for each beer, you don't need to know anything personal. I think just knowing the spread of scores in each category would be really helpful for brewers.

[WishboneBrewery]

The general rule of thumb is to try to have things run at top level (i.e. the number of the category in the BJCP style guideline, with the letter as sub-category), which means that actually most things weren't collapsed. And then, it becomes an exercise in deciding what the smallest number of beers you will allow a category to run at along with being sensible about combinations. For example, there were 2 sour ales and 8 fruit beers (many on a sour base), so it made sense for sours to go with them, and the bitty breakdown of lagers meant it weas sensible to group them. Bock was not lumped in as there is a risk that bocks outdo otherwise very good beers on the 'bigger is better' scale of things.

A bit rambling, but I hope you can see some logic here. It's a pretty standard practice in making it work.

You mention the Bocks, 5 entries as was the English brown ales, yet the Imperial Stouts and range of IPA's were more what I was thinking about along with the massive cover-all category of English Pale Ales.
From what I think I saw in the Stouts there was more than 5 entries in the Imperial Stouts so would warrant a category of their own for ease of judging and it looks like its caused the 'Bigger is Better' results in the Stouts section.
The IPAs category I think is much the same though a better spread in the results, with the amount of entries I would have liked to have seen these kept in their entered styles rather than pitched against each other, there is no-way an English IPA is the same as an American IPA and Imperial IPA can be a hard-core version of either.
American Ales is another with its mix of Pale, Amber and Brown Ales.

What I'd actually like to know is the number of entries for each style before they were collapsed, you'll gather this all stems from the Bock & English Brown Ales that have 5 entries each which leads me to believe judging would have been simplified (in a manner of speaking) and results per-style would have more clarity to entrants.

Hope none of that sounds arsey, its not meant to as I had a fantastic time on Saturday and hope I can be more useful the next time the competition is held.

[Stoat on a rope]

Good job Ali... I'm missing a score though entry# 191

I'll try to track it down.

No worries, Cheers Ali!

[alikocho]

The general rule of thumb is to try to have things run at top level (i.e. the number of the category in the BJCP style guideline, with the letter as sub-category), which means that actually most things weren't collapsed. And then, it becomes an exercise in deciding what the smallest number of beers you will allow a category to run at along with being sensible about combinations. For example, there were 2 sour ales and 8 fruit beers (many on a sour base), so it made sense for sours to go with them, and the bitty breakdown of lagers meant it weas sensible to group them. Bock was not lumped in as there is a risk that bocks outdo otherwise very good beers on the 'bigger is better' scale of things.

A bit rambling, but I hope you can see some logic here. It's a pretty standard practice in making it work.

You mention the Bocks, 5 entries as was the English brown ales, yet the Imperial Stouts and range of IPA's were more what I was thinking about along with the massive cover-all category of English Pale Ales.
From what I think I saw in the Stouts there was more than 5 entries in the Imperial Stouts so would warrant a category of their own for ease of judging and it looks like its caused the 'Bigger is Better' results in the Stouts section.
The IPAs category I think is much the same though a better spread in the results, with the amount of entries I would have liked to have seen these kept in their entered styles rather than pitched against each other, there is no-way an English IPA is the same as an American IPA and Imperial IPA can be a hard-core version of either.
American Ales is another with its mix of Pale, Amber and Brown Ales.

What I'd actually like to know is the number of entries for each style before they were collapsed, you'll gather this all stems from the Bock & English Brown Ales that have 5 entries each which leads me to believe judging would have been simplified (in a manner of speaking) and results per-style would have more clarity to entrants.

Hope none of that sounds arsey, its not meant to as I had a fantastic time on Saturday and hope I can be more useful the next time the competition is held.

First up, let's clear up what I see as the first issue here. What you think of as collapsed is somewhat different to what I think of as collapsed. The breakdown works as categories with numbers (broken into families) and styles within them which have letters. I therefore don't see running category 14 (IPA) with a,c, and c together as collapsing. I do see putting 1,2,3, and 4 together as colapsing categories. This is, perhaps, and important distinction to be clear on in giving more understanding as to why things were organized as they were. And, IFYSWIM, to me beers are entered into their top

To take this a step further, there are 23 categories in the 2008 BJCP guidelines and 84 styles. Giving 84 sets of medals would be ridiculous and expensive, not least as some categories in the smaller end of things had one entry. There's a point at which it doesn't become practical to break them apart, or necessarily useful. Plus, where does one draw the line?

And if you look at the American National Homebrew Competition, which always uses the BJCP setup, you'll see that they approach categories in much the same way as I did.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that this is the only way to do it, nor necessarily the best, but some of it is simply an organizational concern. Competitions are, by their very nature, complex and imperfect beasts. We have to live with the imperfections, reflect on things, manage expectations, try to predict entries (I got that one wrong this year), and consider options for future competitions. What you raise are valid points, and I hope I've provided some answers.

[WishboneBrewery]

*Smiles* You've answered the questions without giving the answers, you'll make an excellent politician

I'm not too fussed how they were technically collapsed, What I mean is more like this:

American IPA's 26, English IPA's 22, Imperial IPA's 10 = Total of 58 in the IPA's, etc etc for each.

Something I assume is an important part of the competition software and the numbers are readily displayed.

Cheers

[alikocho]

*Smiles* You've answered the questions without giving the answers, you'll make an excellent politician

I'm a politcal Historian. Goes with the territory. I could argue that you need to rephrase the question. Which you did.

I'm not too fussed how they were technically collapsed, What I mean is more like this:

American IPA's 26, English IPA's 22, Imperial IPA's 10 = Total of 58 in the IPA's, etc etc for each.

Something I assume is an important part of the competition software and the numbers are readily displayed.

Cheers

Again, what you term "collapsed" differs from the way I approached this. This is important in this instance as it explains whay things were as they were, so I hope you'll forgive me bringing it up again.

The software works at the top level category, giving me numbers, so you're asking me to count them myself as they aren't readily displayed.

But:
IPA=
EIPA - 13
AIPA - 30
IIPA - 15

Stout=
Dry Stout - 16
Sweet Stout - 4
Oatmeal Stout - 5
Foreign Stout -2
American Stout -2
Imperial Stout - 14

American Ales:
Pale - 14
Amber - 16
Brown - 7

Bock
Maibock - 2
Traditional Bock - 3

----------------

Does this help? And explain why dealing with this monster isn't always as straightforward as it might seem.

[coatesg]

I don't think the collapsing could be improved much - I'm not massively in favour of having subcategories awarded separately. If you brew a popular style, then making it a tougher competition (rather than reducing flights to keep them equivalent) doesn't seem unreasonable. In fact this has the potential to encourage people to brew the less common styles here (how many American Lagers were there? 1? Sours? 2?). (there's a valid point about "bigger is better" but this comes down to the quality of the judging rather than the way the groups are organised.).

Adding a subcategory limit does make sense though (like the AHA NHC - 1 per entrant) - it would reduce category flooding, and possibly reduce some of the larger categories a bit...but you'll never get rid of bias towards fashionable styles (saison? US IPA?) or styles historically brewed here (but anomalies: EIPA, Mild? Poorly supported this year?)

[WishboneBrewery]

Cheers Ali, so you have to work with what you've got in the software sense, thanks for taking the time.

From what I recall the Amber/Browns were together last year with the APAs separate, this felt a fairer collapse.
I'd have liked to see the IPAs each stand alone with those amounts.
The Stouts, are undoubtedly tricky, at the very least the Imperials would have been fairer kept separate.

These are obviously my views and I wholeheartedly believe that each beer was judged on its individual merits and to its own style.

I know you'll have to count again, but any chance of seeing the range and numbers of beers in the 'English Pale Ales' Thanks

A side question: do you have many Northern / Scottish BJCP judges in training?
The results look to show a bias toward the South and it makes you think doing the Exams & knowing what a judge is looking for in a particular style has an influence on how you brew or choose your entries. (Maybe the North of England & Scotland didn't enter much this year?)

Thanks again

[alix101]

Cheers Ali, so you have to work with what you've got in the software sense, thanks for taking the time.

From what I recall the Amber/Browns were together last year with the APAs separate, this felt a fairer collapse.
I'd have liked to see the IPAs each stand alone with those amounts.
The Stouts, are undoubtedly tricky, at the very least the Imperials would have been fairer kept separate.

These are obviously my views and I wholeheartedly believe that each beer was judged on its individual merits and to its own style.

I know you'll have to count again, but any chance of seeing the range and numbers of beers in the 'English Pale Ales' Thanks

A side question: do you have many Northern / Scottish BJCP judges in training?
The results look to show a bias toward the South and it makes you think doing the Exams & knowing what a judge is looking for in a particular style has an influence on how you brew or choose your entries. (Maybe the North of England & Scotland didn't enter much this year?)

I've been doing the bjcp course, and the other northern craft brewers where lancssteve and unclepumble, obviously shane is tied up with his brewery and I hadn't done the online exam yet do that left steve, the course was posted on here with alot of interest, but only a few took it up.
I was down as a north east drop off and I had no participants, I don't know how many went by post? But it does say to me either in this area people didn't want to enter, or maybe competitions aren't a priority, maybe if the north east brew club takes off there might be more interest next year.The winners where mostly in a club midlands, london, bristol ,oxford etc but to me the northern region is just to big for people to feel involved in which in my opinion is why the results appear to favour the south.....can't speak for the scottish but they did appear to get some good results.

Thanks again

**Edited to tidy it up for you** pdtnc

[alix101]

Above needs editing ...but it's difficult on my phone

[alikocho]

Cheers Ali, so you have to work with what you've got in the software sense, thanks for taking the time.

From what I recall the Amber/Browns were together last year with the APAs separate, this felt a fairer collapse.
I'd have liked to see the IPAs each stand alone with those amounts.
The Stouts, are undoubtedly tricky, at the very least the Imperials would have been fairer kept separate.

These are obviously my views and I wholeheartedly believe that each beer was judged on its individual merits and to its own style.

I know you'll have to count again, but any chance of seeing the range and numbers of beers in the 'English Pale Ales' Thanks

A side question: do you have many Northern / Scottish BJCP judges in training?
The results look to show a bias toward the South and it makes you think doing the Exams & knowing what a judge is looking for in a particular style has an influence on how you brew or choose your entries. (Maybe the North of England & Scotland didn't enter much this year?)

Thanks again

Again, I don't think of the same thing when using "collapse". I think what you asking is why weren't some things disaggregated. And ca I point out that this is a challenging thing to organize. Like Graeme, I'm not really keen to create 83 categories. Category flooding needs to be prevented (and a rule adjustment is easily made to stop it) - 6 best bitters from the same brewer and of 8 fruit beers 3 or 4 appear to be the same base beer with different fruit. Plus, the more categories you pull apart, the greater the subjectivity of judges comes into play as you avoid mini-bos at the table to decide placings.

On the IPA's, I think that given that an IIPA, and AIPA and an EIPA all placed in what was a very tough and close category that they don't need to be pulled apart.

English Pale Ale - Ordinary Bitter, 8; Best Bitter, 24; ESB, 25. Again, one of each of these placed. And it was the ESB that came 3rd...I don't think these need pulling apart.

The American Ales last year were pulled apart. There, what happened is that there were 25 or so APAs, and a handful of Ambers and Browns. Not the case this year.

A side question: do you have many Northern / Scottish BJCP judges in training?
The results look to show a bias toward the South and it makes you think doing the Exams & knowing what a judge is looking for in a particular style has an influence on how you brew or choose your entries. (Maybe the North of England & Scotland didn't enter much this year?)

I do have several northerners, Scots and even Irish candidates for the exam. One of the northerners, Steve Syson, did rather well in the competition.

But I think you have hit on something - understanding the styles AND how competitions work does help in brewing for them, and in getting an appreciation of what judges are looking for in the styles. When you then have judges in a club setting this then translates into a broader education of these things to other members. This may account for the LAB performance (aside from sheer weight of numbers), as they have 6 BJCP judges. After the October exam this year, and the April one next year that map will change. And if anyone wants to be added to the list for an exam slot they should get in touch with me.

And there's something in Stephen's point about clubs - they really are important in these things. They can be hubs for collecting entries (like London - most if not all of the LAB entries came on the day). They also allow you to work out where winners are from, which would be how you come up with the visibility of a 'bias' in the results towards the south (which may or may not exist).

[vacant]

And there's something in Stephen's point about clubs - they really are important in these things. They can be hubs for collecting entries (like London - most if not all of the LAB entries came on the day). They also allow you to work out where winners are from, which would be how you come up with the visibility of a 'bias' in the results towards the south (which may or may not exist).

Majority of UKNHBC medal winners are club members. Aren't there some self-selecting statistics on the proportion of home brewers who belong to a club? ISTR it was a question on that survey when the CBA turmoil was happening. I assume the majority of home brewers are not club members or even forum members.

Example: my missus works at Waterstone's, last weekend a guy was after a book on brewing from their poor selection. She was quite pleased with herself being able to advise him to also look at JBK where her hubby learnt from

[WishboneBrewery]

yeah, there is a lot of weight to Alix101's comments, NCB are a large area and getting together isn't that frequent, Quarterly and if you can get there!
The Leeds Homebrew group seem to be gaining some good momentum, but again its not convenient for me as they generally meet on a Thursday evening and by the time I've finished work the last thing on my mind is going to drink beer in Leeds.

I think I'll be in touch about the BJCP course, expect email Ali, its all learning, its about beer and its amazing array of styles and should be a good thing