1st round NHC results

[brewmanator]

I judged the morning session of the final round last year and we had 7 judges for about 27 beers, so 9 beers per judging pair or trio.  This is pushing the limit for one flight. 

For each additional 1st round site added to the competition you add three beers to the final round for each category.  Using the minimum of 6 judges per category this amounts to one additional beer per pair of judges.  Not a big difference, but at some point you will need to add another pair of judges for each category, which might let you expand the number of beers to 36 or 39 (12 or 13 first round sites).

The question to ponder is whether we would have enough high ranking judges participate in the final round.  I've heard that we won't have much of a problem this year.  Maybe we could entice more participation if the AHA offered a discounted conference pass to those of us who plan to spend part or most of the first day of NHC helping out with the competition?

[denny]

Thank you Drew

that sounds about like I expected. 
So it sounds like someone smarter than me needs to decide on a maximum that can be handled in one day and work backwards from there.  Or are you saying we are already at that number?

I'd say we're at the limit.  The checklist scoresheet was implemented to s[peed things up after the fiasco in Orlando 6 years ago when the judging went 2 days and we could barely find enough people to do it.  The new scoresheet enables us to get through it one day, but you're still looking at the fact that you have only 6-7 minutes to judge each beer.  And my guilty admission...after judging final round 5 times, I don't do it any more.  It just takes me away from the conference for too long.  There are other, personal reasons, too, but I've found that I just don't want to spare the time like I used to.

[hokerer]

I'd say we're at the limit.  The checklist scoresheet was implemented to s[peed things up after the fiasco in Orlando 6 years ago when the judging went 2 days and we could barely find enough people to do it.  The new scoresheet enables us to get through it one day, but you're still looking at the fact that you have only 6-7 minutes to judge each beer.

I'd go so far as to say 'past' the limit.  Plus, if an entry makes it to the final round, it certainly deserves more consideration than some sort of 'speed dating' checklist approach.  Every final round qualifier should be given the full judging treatment.  Finally, in order to acknowledge the reality of 'different day, different judge', 1st through 3rd places in the qualifying comps should advance.

With those as givens, the next thing is to start at the end and work backwards.  A qualifying comp is going to advance three places (win/place/show) times 28 categories for a total of 84 entries.  Since BJCP guidelines say that a single flight for a category is a max of 12 entries, that would mean the a final round with one flight per category could handle four qualifying comps (each of four comps would place three entries per category for a total of 12).  Two flights per category could handle eight qualifiers, three flights = 12 qualifiers, and four flights = 16 qualifiers.

Four qualifiers would mean four times three places times 28 categories = 336 total entries.  Eight qualifiers means eight times three times 28 = 672 total entries.  12 qualifiers = 1008 entries.  16 = 1344.

The current 924 entries (from 10 qualifiers) is too many.  In order to give each final round entry the proper judging it deserves, the total needs to be less than that.  That points to the 672 total entries number above which means there would be eight qualifying comps.

Do similar math for the qualifiers and it becomes pretty obvious that a third round really makes sense.  If each of those eight qualifying comps had eight comps feeding as a preliminary round, that'd mean there'd be 64 first rounds.  Make those much smaller (manageable by fewer judges, requiring little/no judge travel, reasonable for smaller cities, etc.) and you've got a workable solution.  Spread the three rounds over 12 months and you've really got something.

All my humble opinion, of course

[thcipriani]

So the problem is 2-fold:

• Not enough openings for everyone to enter
• Not enough judges to score existing entries

Why not give people who judged last year the right of "first-refusal"? I.e. open entries a day early to those who judged the year previous.

If judges fill up all slots in all regions you're guaranteed to get more judges the following year which would, in-turn allow for more entries.

This also answers the question of how to better incentivize judges. 

[a10t2]

Why not give people who judged last year the right of "first-refusal"? I.e. open entries a day early to those who judged the year previous.

Wouldn't that create more conflicts of interest? I could imagine a situation in which one of the first-round sites would have no one eligible to judge a popular category.

[dontblake]

Howdy Folks..

First things first - Denver scoresheets will be mailing tomorrow.   Sorry for the delay, but there were a few things that necessitated a re-check of all envelopes and I was out of volunteers.

I just read thru this entire thread and have a couple of comments (some were also mentioned at the regional judging)

Judging
The number of judges needed to tackle 750 beers is quite large.  Out here in Colorado's Front Range, there are a lot of judges, but also a lot of other competitions.  Conflicts are inevitable and when they do, certain judges are lost to other competitions, thus reducing the judge pool.  There's two ways to fix this - regional competition coordination and to get more judges involved.   If you aren't satisfied with your scoresheets and have a legitamate gripe with a judge's comments (e.g. too vague, not detailed enough, etc) then you should e-mail them and let them know!  Also, become part of the solution and join the ranks of the BJCP.   The new exam format should help speed up the certification process substantially.

Entry Cap by brewer
I personally like this idea.   The lion's share of Denver Regional entrants had 1-3 beers, but there were only three or four entrants who had more than 9, so the arbitrary cap of 10 might not help much.   I think that if a cap were set, the Ninkasi could still be realistic, just formulated differently.   If someone who entered 70 beers placed 8 and another who entered 8 placed 8, who is the better brewer?

Entry cap by time (everyone gets a day to enter at most 1 or 2 beers, then it's open)
This is another one that I like a lot.  I didn't get an entry logged in soon enough and had to ship my entries to Minnesota....and I was the regional organizer for Denver, so that sorta bugged me that I had to pay for shipping when I was visiting the judging site regularly.   

NHC second round
Since the conference filled up so quickly, I think there's a very large likelihood that judges qualified and interested in the second round judging were turned away.   There should be some avenue for folks who are intending on participating in the second round judging to get a head start on conference registration.

Allright that's it for now.   Again, sorry for the delay in getting scoresheets mailed out, but you all should be seeing them by early next week.
Congrats to the folks who advanced and good luck in Seattle.
Thanks to all who participated as an entrant, and especially those who helped by volunteering!

Cheers
Don Blake

[tom]

Thanks for running the 1st round in Denver Don.

I thought everything went very well on Friday night.  Sorry I couldn't judge on Saturday too.
 
Thanks again for all of your time and energy.

Cheers,
Tom

P.S. see you in Seattle?

[brewmasternpb]

It's good to hear that the Denver sheets are being mailed soon, but more so, we appreciate all of your (and all of the volunteers') hard work.

[snowtiger87]

Hey Don,

Are you going to the NHC? Sorry I could not make the regional judging this year. I am supposed to be back in time for the NHC and have signed up to judge - I am looking forward to it.

Cheers,
Scott J

[bbkf]

Why not give people who judged last year the right of "first-refusal"? I.e. open entries a day early to those who judged the year previous.

Wouldn't that create more conflicts of interest? I could imagine a situation in which one of the first-round sites would have no one eligible to judge a popular category.

when the available entries are gone in 15 minutes, then there is a problem.

right now....there isn't.

If your life long goal is to win a medal (or ninkasi) then you will be there to sign up for it. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

stop b****ing

[a10t2]

If your life long goal is to win a medal (or ninkasi) then you will be there to sign up for it. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

Damn straight. If someone isn't willing to take a day off work to enter the NHC, they probably aren't a very good brewer anyway.

[bo]

If your life long goal is to win a medal (or ninkasi) then you will be there to sign up for it. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

Damn straight. If someone isn't willing to take a day off work to enter the NHC, they probably aren't a very good brewer anyway.

I guess I suck as a brewer.

[tygo]

If your life long goal is to win a medal (or ninkasi) then you will be there to sign up for it. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

Damn straight. If someone isn't willing to take a day off work to enter the NHC, they probably aren't a very good brewer anyway.

It's probably fairer to say that if someone isn't willing to take a day off work to enter the NHC, they probably aren't as interested in entering the competition anyway.

[micsager]

Well, it's May 4th and first round results are not yet posted.  Looks like Chicago is still processing.  (whatever that means)

[james]

Well, it's May 4th and first round results are not yet posted.  Looks like Chicago is still processing.  (whatever that means)

I thought last year it said "by the end of the day on..."  but don't see that there this year.  I'm sure they will be posted by the end of the day unless some act of god happens.  Janis is working very hard on this and as always, she will come through.