TABLE OF CONTENTS

Since the inception of the BJCP, several tools have been developed to help potential judges study for the exam. The most widely used are the study guides written by Chuck Cox and Greg Walz. The former was assembled in the early 1990s with the help of readers of the Judge Digest and consists of an outline of the information and terminology needed to pass the exam. The latter is a more verbose discussion of ingredients, brewing procedures and flavors as they relate to beer styles and judging. The outline version is valuable because it encourages independent study; however the verbose version was used as the foundation for the first BJCP Study Guide because information could be added and updated without radically changing the presentation format.

This new edition of the BJCP Study Guide was written with a different approach that was motivated by the feedback and performance from those who have used other study guides. Most of these contain information that is outdated, incorrect or irrelevant to the types of questions asked on the exam. For example, a study guide should not be a tutorial on homebrewing, but should summarize the aspects of the brewing process that relate to beer flavors and styles. The information presented here was written by a group of technically proficient judges and brewers and tailored to the actual BJCP exam questions. The backgrounds of these authors are summarized at the end of the guide. The material has also been reviewed by the BJCP Exam Committee to ensure that it is technically correct and understandable. The goal was to prepare a document that is not only valuable in studying for the exam, but concise and complete enough to be used as a judging handbook. In addition, it is essential that this study guide be made freely available to potential judges. It is available for downloading on the BJCP website (www.bjcp.org).

The study guide begins with a section describing the BJCP and the motivation and mechanics behind the judging process. Also included are links to BJCP scoresheets, a comprehensive list of possible exam questions and an outline of a study course for beer judges. The BJCP style guidelines are introduced and discussed, and links to the guidelines are provided. Other study guides feature more complete style descriptions, but we found that many potential judges relied on that information as their sole reference for information about beer styles. This may be sufficient to pass the exam, but is no substitute for the wealth of information that is found in Michael Jackson's Beer Companion and The New World Guide to Beer, for example. The last major section of the study guide is a review of technical information about the brewing process and flavors in beer. Although this material was written with the exam questions in mind, it is no substitute for gaining an understanding of the brewing process by reading the references and putting that knowledge to practical use by actually brewing a batch of beer.

We hope that this study guide fulfills its goal of offering a complete, concise and understandable overview of the information needed to pass the exam. We recommend that it be used in conjunction with the following references to gain a complete understanding of beer styles, beer flavors and the brewing process. Good luck!

Note: This guide has been revised to remove obviously outdated material and to update the document with program changes that have been made since 1998. A completely revised study guide will be produced after the current Exam Committee completes the revision to the BJCP Exam.

— Gordon Strong, March 2006

RECOMMENDED READING

Michael Jackson, Beer Companion (Running Press, Philadelphia, 1997). Michael Jackson, The New World Guide to Beer (Running Press, Philadelphia, 1988). John Palmer, How to Brew, (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 2006). Al Korzonas, Homebrewing: Volume 1 (Sheaf & Vine, Palos Hills, IL, 1997). Dave Miller, Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide (Garden Way Publishing, Pownal, VT 1996). Gregg Smith, The Beer Enthusiasts Guide (Storey Communications, Pownal, VT, 1994). Ray Daniels, Designing Great Beers (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1996). Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer, Brewing Classic Styles (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 2007).

ADVANCED READING

Classic Beer Styles Series, (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO). There are presently seventeen books in this series, plus three additional books on Belgian beer styles: Pale Ale, 2nd Ed. and Porter, both by Terry Foster; Continental Pilsner by David Miller; Lambic by Jean-Xavier Guinard; Vienna, Maerzen, Oktoberfest by George and Laurie Fix; Bock by Darryl Richman; Scotch Ale by Greg Noonan; German Wheat Beer by Eric Warner; Belgian Ale by Pierre Rajotte, Stout by Michael Lewis, Altbier by Horst Dornbusch, and Barleywine by Fal Allen and Dick Cantwell, Bavarian Helles by Horst Dornbusch, Brown Ale by Ray Daniels and Jim Parker, Kölsch by Eric Warner, Mild Ale by David Sutula, Smoked Beer by Ray Daniels and Geoffrey Larson, Farmhouse Ales by Phil Markowski, Wild Brews by Jeff Sparrow, Brew Like a Monk by Stan Hieronymus. Gregory J. Noonan, New Brewing Lager Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 2003). George Fix, Principles of Brewing Science, 2nd Edition (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1999). George and Laurie Fix, An Analysis of Brewing Techniques, Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1997). Brewing Techniques (New Wine Press, Eugene, OR). Contains a wealth of information about the ingredients, history and flavors in beer. While no longer being published some articles are available at www.brewingtechniques.com. Zymurgy Special Issues (Association of Brewers, Boulder, CO). Of particular use are the 1997 issue on Hops, the 1995 issue on Grains, the 1991 issue on Traditional Beer Styles, the 1989 and 1998 issues on Yeast and the 1987 issue on Troubleshooting. Back issues available at www.beertown.org. Charlie Papazian, et al, Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993). Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's Great Beers of Belgium (Media Marketing Communications, Antwerp, 2005). Roger Protz, The Taste of Beer (Orion Publishing, London, 1998). Michael Jackson, Ultimate Beer (DK Publishing, New York, 1998). Michael Jackson, Great Beer Guide (DK Publishing, New York, 2000). Roger Protz, The Ale Trail (Eric Dobby Publishing, Kent, 1995). Horst Dornbusch, Prost! The Story of German Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1997). Charles Bamforth, Beer: Tap into the Art and Science of Brewing (Plenum Press, New York, 1998).

(See also the BJCP Member Guide)

A. The BJCP Guide

The Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) is a non-profit organization that encourages the advancement of education of people who are concerned with the evaluation of beer and related fermented products. The BJCP certifies Beer and Mead judges, and ranks beer judges through an exam and monitoring process.

The program was created in 1985 through the joint efforts of the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association (HWBTA) and the American Homebrewers Association (AHA). Since 1995, the BJCP has operated independently of either founding organization, governed only by its membership of participating judges.

In 1985 some 30 people took the BJCP beer exam and became certified. Since that first exam, over 200 judges have joined the ranks annually. At this time, there are 7,614 judges active in the BJCP and a total membership of 13,273.

The purpose of the BJCP is to promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills.

The BJCP Beer Exam

The three-hour BJCP beer exam is given in two parts: essay and tasting. The essay portion, worth 70 percent of the final score, is designed to determine an individual's overall knowledge of beer and his or her ability to clearly express the information in writing. Essay questions cover the following areas:

Technical aspects of brewing, ingredients, brewing process and possible faults.

World beer styles, including characteristics, history, ingredients and brewing techniques.

The BJCP. Judges represent the BJCP and should be able to explain the program to potential judges and others in the homebrewing community.

Judging procedures and ethics, taken from the BJCP Judge Procedures Manual.

The tasting portion of the exam is worth 30 percent of the final score. Each candidate will judge four beers as he or she would at a competition. The prospective judge must score the beer and describe all significant aspects of it, as well as comment on style characteristics.

In preparing for the exam, you should acquire a broad understanding of beer styles, know different brewing methods, and understand how brewing methods correlate with style and flavor. Brewing processes should be understood to the point where you can intelligently discuss various techniques and ingredients and how they may have affected the beer being sampled. Frequent tasting of commercial beers will help you gain further understanding of style differences.

Judging Levels

Judges vary widely in their skill and experience. As a result, the BJCP recognizes various levels of accomplishment. An individual's level of certification is determined by two factors: exam score and experience points earned through AHA/BJCP Sanctioned Competition Program events. The different levels and the criteria for achieving them are outlined below.

APPRENTICE - someone who has taken the BJCP exam, but failed to score at least 60 percent. No experience points are required, but the judge must remain active.

RECOGNIZED - minimum score of 60 percent on the exam. No experience points are necessary to attain this level.

CERTIFIED - minimum score of 70 percent on the exam and at least five experience points, 2.5 of which must be judging points.

NATIONAL - minimum score of 80 percent on the exam and at least 20 experience points, 10 of which must be judging points.

MASTER - minimum score of 90 percent on the exam and at least 40 experience points, 20 of which must be judging points.

GRAND MASTER I - minimum score of 90 percent on the exam and at least 100 experience points, 50 of which must be judging points. A service requirement for the BJCP must also be fulfilled; rules for the Grand Master Service Requirement can be found at /gmsr.php.

GRAND MASTER - ADDITIONAL LEVELS - Additional levels (II, III, IV, etc.) can be earned in 100 experience point increments with additional service requirements following the rules for the Grand Master Service Requirement.

HONORARY MASTER - is temporarily bestowed on judges who serve as operatives of the program (Regional Director, Exam Director, Program Administrator, etc.) at their discretion for the duration of their service if they have not already earned at least the Master rank. The rank may also be awarded, in special cases, to judges who have demonstrated Master Judge proficiency but who have not necessarily taken the exam. This status is determined by the BJCP Board of Directors.

HONORARY GRAND MASTER - Created in 2005, this is a permanent rank bestowed upon individuals by the BJCP Board of Directors for extraordinarily long and meritorious service involving significant, meaningful and continuous work for the BJCP program. Individuals receiving this rank are authorized to wear and use the Grand Master pin and rank.

A person who has not taken the BJCP exam but who judges in competitions is generally referred to as a Novice Judge. This is not an official BJCP rank, but this description is used on the BJCP scoresheets. Novice judges should only judge in AHA/BJCP sanctioned competitions if approved by the competition organizer.

Advancing in the BJCP

Because both exam scores and experience points determine the level of recognition achieved in the BJCP, a judge should strive to meet both types of criteria on an ongoing basis. A judge may wish to retake the exam at a reduced fee in order to achieve the higher score necessary to advance to the next level. A judge will be placed on an inactive list if no experience points are recorded for two years. After two years on the inactive list, a judge will be dropped from the BJCP roster. This policy encourages judges to maintain their skills and assures competition organizers that they are using experienced judges with up to date knowledge of beer styles and judging practices. When promoted to a new rank, the judge receives a handsome certificate and a wallet-size card showing the date of award and level of recognition.

The mead exam has different advancement rules, but these are not covered on the beer exam. If you are interested in the details, see the BJCP Mead Study Guide.

Experience Points

The BJCP awards experience points to judges and staff who participate in AHA/BJCP Sanctioned Competition Program events or in BJCP exams. The point award varies depending on the size of the event and the job an individual performs. There are two groups of experience points: Judging points and Non-Judging points.

Individuals earn Judging points for actually judging in a registered competition, including Best of Show (BOS) judging. Individuals earn Non-Judging points for serving (or assisting) as a competition organizer, a steward, an administrator (or assistant) for a BJCP exam, or participating in a Continuing Education Program. While competition organizers may use their discretion in deciding to whom and how many Staff points they allocate, Judge points must be earned by the individual receiving them and cannot be allocated.

As of 2006, the AHA and BJCP have merged the separate competition programs into a single unified program: the AHA/BJCP Sanctioned Competition Program. All past BJCP or AHA events will continue to be recognized. The point award schedule for the program is as follows:

Experience Points are the mechanism used by the BJCP to indicate the practical participation of members in BJCP events. There are two groups of experience points: judging experience points and non-judging experience points. Each of these groups consists of different categories of points that are accrued according to the rules of the various types of events. Experience Points are recorded in the BJCP database as judging and non-judging experience points only, not the more detailed schedules for each event.

Program Participants are individuals who perform an active role in a sanctioned competition. Important categories of program participants are Organizers, Judges, Best-of-Show Judges, Stewards and Staff. Each category of participants has different rules that govern the awarding of experience points.

Organizers are the only program participants to receive Organizer Points, which are non-judging experience points that are allocated based on the total number of competition entries as shown in Table 1. The Organizer may ONLY receive Organizer Points, not Judge Points, Best-of-Show Judge Points, Staff Points, Steward Points, or any other combination of points, regardless of other roles performed. Any other program participant is eligible to receive any combination of Judge, Best-of-Show Judge, Steward, or Staff Points in a single competition, except as noted. However, the total points (judging plus non-judging experience points) awarded to any program participant may not exceed (but may equal) the Organizer Points designated for the Organizer of the competition.

Judges earn points at a rate of 0.5 Judge Points per session, but the following limitations apply:

Judges earn a minimum of 1.0 Judge Point per competition .

of 1.0 Judge Point per . Judges earn a maximum of 1.5 Judge Points per day.

BOS Judge Points are a separate category of points, and are not subject to these limitations. The total number of experience points (including Judge Points) a judge may earn in a competition is limited by the Organizer Points, and is shown in Table 1. Judge Points are a type of judging experience points.

Best-of-Show (BOS) Judges are eligible to receive 0.5 Best-of-Show (BOS) Judge Points if they judge in any BOS panel in a competition. BOS Judge Points are a type of judging experience points separate from Judge Points. The BOS Judge Points are a bonus (i.e., an additional or extra reward) in addition to any other judging and non-judging experience points earned in the competition, and may only be awarded to a single judge once per competition. BOS Judge Points may only be awarded if a competition has at least 30 entries in at least five beer and/or three mead/cider categories.

The number of judges eligible to receive the BOS Judge Point bonus is correlated to the number of entries in each BOS panel as follows:

5-14 entries, including beer = 3 BOS Judges

3-14 meads and/or ciders (only) = 3 BOS Judges

15 or more entries of any type or combination = 5 BOS Judges

This limitation applies to each individual BOS panel. Competitions may seat separate homebrew, commercial and mead and/or cider BOS panels, if desired.

A best-of-show judge receives the BOS Judge Point bonus if a judge judges in at least one other session in the competition. If a judge only judges in a BOS panel, that judge earns 1.0 BOS Judge Points and no Judge Points.

Stewards receive 0.5 Steward Points (non-judging experience points) per day with a maximum of 1.0 Steward Points per competition. Participants may not earn both Judge and Steward Points in a single competition. Steward points are awarded separately from Staff Points and do not come from the Staff Point pool shown in Table 1. A program participant may earn both Steward and Staff Points.

Staff Points are non-judging experience points awarded by the Organizer to one or more program participants in minimum increments of 0.5 points. The sum of all Staff Points awarded to all program participants may not exceed the Table 1 Staff Point maximum.

Note: In order to maintain competition integrity, staff members with access to entry data should refrain from judging as they may be able to associate entry numbers or entry descriptions with an entrant's identity.

# of Entries Organizer Staff* Judge 1 - 49 2.0 1 1.5 50 - 99 2.5 2 2.0 100 - 149 3.0 3 2.5 150 - 199 3.5 4 3.0 200 - 299 4.0 5 3.5 300 - 399 4.5 6 4.0 400 - 499 5.0 7 4.5 500 - 599 6.0 Max 8 5.5 Max +1 staff point for each additional 100 entries

*Note: The Staff Point numbers represent the total points which can be awarded to all staff members collectively. No single person can receive more total points than the Organizer. For each 100 entries over 500 one additional Staff Point may be awarded. Organizer Points are capped at 6, regardless of competition size.

COMPETITION An event held in a single geographical area where beer and possibly other fermented beverages are formally evaluated against a set of pre-defined style guidelines or category descriptions for the purpose of constructive feedback and acknowledgment of excellence. A competition is comprised of one or more sessions spanning one or more days. DAY A calendar date when judging is held. Competitions may take place on one or more days, and the days do not have to be contiguous. SESSION An uninterrupted time period when at least one panel of judges sits to judge one or more flights of entries. Typically, "morning", "afternoon" and "evening" are considered sessions at most competitions. CATEGORY An arbitrary grouping of styles for purposes of judging. The BJCP Style Guidelines has categories of styles, but these do not need to be used as competition categories for award purposes. Organizers are free to group beer styles in any way they want for competition judging and award purposes. FLIGHT A single grouping of entries that are combined for the purposes of judging, that are evaluated by a single panel of judges, and that result in a ranked ordering for purposes of determining awards. In large competitions, a single award category may be divided into multiple flights with the overall winner determined in a Mini-BOS round. MINI-BOS ROUND A subsequent flight within a session during which judges compare the leading entries of two or more separate flights in order to determine overall class or category winners. This shall not qualify as a separate session for the purpose of awarding points. BEST OF SHOW (BOS) PANEL A single session awarding top honors for a competition from at least five beer category winners or three mead and/or cider winners. ORGANIZER The single program participant who registers the competition and who in all ways assumes responsibility for the direction of that competition – before, during, and after the competition itself. The organizer cannot receive experience points for performing any other role during a competition. JUDGE Any program participant who evaluates entries, completes score sheets, and determines the final score and rank of entries in a flight. BOS JUDGE A program participant who evaluates entries and selects a winner during a BOS panel. NON-BJCP JUDGE A person who has not taken the BJCP exam, but who has been approved by the competition organizer to serve as a judge in a competition. The person may or may not have extensive experience, but does not have a formal certification. MEAD JUDGE A person who has taken the mead exam and scored a 60% or higher. This person may also be a beer judge although taking the beer exam is not a requirement. STEWARD A program participant who assists judges, obtains entries and supplies, handles paperwork, and manages the competition logistics at a judging table. STAFF Program participants who, under the direction of the Organizer, perform an active role in support of the competition other than as a Judge, Steward, or BOS Judge. These roles include, but are not limited to, Assistant Organizer, Head Steward, Registrar, Cellarmaster, Table Captain, Data Entry, Head Judge, Lunch Caterer, and Committee member. Direct participation is required to earn Staff points; passive participation by individuals who provide websites, software, materials, or other indirect services are not eligible to receive points.

Exam Administration

Exam administrators must be approved by an Exam Director. The administrator receives two non-judging experience points and ten GMSR credits per exam, regardless of the number of exam takers. This system was revised in 2005 as part of the implementation of new GMSR rules. The administrator may not proctor the exam, unless the administrator has no knowledge of the exam beers being served. One person may not receive both administrator and proctor points for the same exam.

A minimum of two proctors is required for the exam, but the BJCP allows up to three proctors to be used. Each proctor, who serves as an independent taster of the exam beers, receives one judging point for completing detailed scoresheets. The proctors are to evaluate the beers with only the same information that is given the examinees — namely the style in question. They are not to consult and resolve scoring discrepancies. The proctors should be informed that their scoresheets will be evaluated by the graders and director for quality, and points may not be awarded if the proctors' work is substandard. Similarly, some or all of the administrator's points may not be awarded if it is apparent that these instructions were not followed, or the exams are not received within ten days of the exam date.

The exam administrator is responsible for making a copy of all examinations before sending the originals to the Exam Director. These copies should be retained until the exam administrator has heard from the Exam Director that the originals have been properly received. Once the Exam Director has received the originals, the exam administrator should provide a copy of each examinees individual exam to them. This is the only copy that will be made available to the examinees; the BJCP will not be returning the originals after the grading process has completed. The returning of the exams in this manner is a provisional policy — the Exam Directors will be monitoring the rate of protested examination results and if rate increases, it may be necessary to revoke the policy of returning exams due to the increased grading load imposed by protested results.

BJCP Administration

The Beer Judge Certification Program is governed by a Committee consisting of seven elected representatives of seven regions of North America. This board manages BJCP policy and bylaws. Communication with BJCP members is handled by the Communication Director, who also handles outside communications.

Complete contact information for all BJCP officers and directors can be found on the BJCP website in the Administration Center at /officers.php.

There are three exam directors responsible for administering the BJCP Exam Program, including managing scheduling, grading and review of BJCP exams. The BJCP Beer Exam and the BJCP Mead Exam are both administered by the BJCP Exam Directorate. There is no separate organizational structure for managing the Mead Exam. The process for scheduling an exam is the same for beer exams and mead exams. The BJCP Exam Directors approve exam sites, administrators and proctors, assign graders, review results, and enforce exam policies.

To schedule an exam, please send an e-mail message to the Exam Directors. A list of scheduled exams can always be found on the BJCP web site in the Exam Center. The approved exam schedule is on the web at /exams.php.

Beer Evaluation

Product evaluation is an important part of brewing, whether performed informally or formally and whether the product is from a commercial or home brewery. Formal beer evaluation serves three primary purposes in the context of brewing competitions. First, the beer evaluations provide feedback to the brewer concerning how well an individual recipe represents its intended beer style. This feedback can be useful as recipes are fine-tuned and attempts are made to improve the beer. Second, beer evaluations may provide brewers with troubleshooting advice. These diagnostic suggestions are particularly helpful when the brewer cannot identify the source of off-flavors or aromas. A knowledgeable beer evaluator can provide the brewer with suggestions for changing procedures and equipment that can help eliminate undesirable flavor and aroma components. Third, beer evaluation provides a fairly unbiased method for selecting and recognizing outstanding beers in brewing competitions.

Environment

One important condition that is necessary for accurate beer evaluation is the establishment of a suitable environment. The environment should be well- lit, odor-free, and distractions should be minimized. Natural, diffuse lighting is best, with incandescent lighting preferred over fluorescent lighting. Table cloths and walls should be free of patterns that might obscure visual inspection of the beer, and light colored or white walls and tablecloths are ideal. The room in which evaluation takes place should be as free of odors as possible. Restaurants and breweries can be particularly troublesome locations for evaluating beers because food and brewing odors are likely to interfere with a beer judge's ability to smell the beers being evaluated. Smoking and perfumes should also be eliminated as much as possible. In addition, the evaluation environment should be as free from other distractions. Noise should be kept to a minimum, and privacy should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Every effort should be made to make the beer judges comfortable by carefully selecting chairs and tables, monitoring the temperature of the evaluation room, and providing assistance to judges during the evaluation process (e.g., stewards).

Equipment

A second important condition that is necessary for effective beer evaluation is suitable equipment. That is, judges need sharp mechanical pencils with erasers — mechanical so that the aroma of wood does not interfere with detecting beer aromas and erasers so that comments and scores can be changed. Beer judges also need suitable cups for sampling the beer — impeccably clean plastic or glass, odor-free, and clear. Also, judges need access to style guidelines. Tables should be equipped with water and bread or crackers for palate cleansing, buckets and towels for cleaning spills or gushes, bottle openers and cork screws, and coolers and temporary caps for temporary storage of opened bottles.

Presentation

As for the presentation of beers, two methods are common, each with positive and negative points. One method of presentation permits judges open and pour the beer into their own cups. A second method of presentation requires stewards to pour beer into pitchers, and the beer is transferred from the pitcher into judges' cups. When judges are allowed to pour their own beers, there is some danger that moving bottles to the evaluation table will stir up yeast and that judges' opinions of a beer's quality will be influenced by the appearance of the bottles that it comes in. On the other hand, when judges transfer beer from a pitcher, it is more difficult to capture many of the fleeting aromas that might dissipate between the time the bottle is opened and the time that judges are presented with the beer. Another problem with using pitchers is that it is more difficult to temporarily store beer samples so that judges can taste them again at a later time.

The Judging Process

Decision Strategies

There are two general decision making strategies that judges use when evaluating a beer. In a top-down decision making strategy, the judge forms an overall impression about the quality of the beer, decides what overall score to assign that beer, and deducts points for each deficient characteristic of the beer based on the overall impression. The problem with this top-down approach to beer evaluation is that it is difficult to ensure that the points allocated to each subcategory (e.g., aroma, appearance, flavor, body) agree with the comments that were made about that feature of the beer. In a bottom-up decision making strategy, the judge scores each subcategory of the beer, deducting points for each deficient characteristic. The overall score is determined by summing the points for each subcategory. The problem with this bottom-up approach to beer evaluation is that it easy to arrive at an overall score for the beer that does not agree with the overall impression of the beer. In short, judges who use a top-down approach to judging beers may "miss the trees for the forest," while judges who use a bottom-up approach to judging beers may "miss the forest for the trees."

Most judges use a combination of these two extremes. Regardless of which approach seems more comfortable to an individual beer judge, there are several general guidelines that judges should follow when assigning scores to beers. In the current BJCP scoring systems, each beer is evaluated on a 50- point scale, allocating 12 points for Aroma, 3 for Appearance, 20 for Flavor, 5 for Mouthfeel and 10 for Overall Impression. In addition, there are sliding scales on the bottom right hand corner for rating the stylistic accuracy, technical merit and intangibles of each beer.

Overall scores should conform to the descriptions given at the bottom of each scoresheet. Excellent ratings (38-44) should be assigned to beers that are excellent representations of the style. Very Good ratings (30-37) should be assigned to good representations of the style that have only minor flaws. Good ratings (21-29) should be assigned to good representations of the style that have significant flaws. Drinkable ratings (14-20) should be assigned to beers that do not adequately represent the style because of serious flaws. A problem rating (13 or lower) is typically assigned to beers that contain flaws that are so serious that the beer is rendered undrinkable. The scoresheet reserves the 45-50 range for outstanding beers that are truly world-class.

In general, the best beers at a competition should be assigned scores in the 40+ range, with real evaluations of the beer identifying some characteristics of the beer that make it non-perfect. A beer receiving a perfect score of 50 must indeed be perfect; it must have absolutely no flaws, exemplify the style as well as or better than the best commercial examples, be perfectly brewery-fresh, and be well-handled and presented. These conditions might not all be under the brewers control, so achieving a perfect beer at the point of presentation to judges is extremely rare.

When providing feedback about very good beers, it is important to identify ways in which the beer can be improved and mention these characteristics on the scoresheet. Any serious flaw or missing aspect of a particular beer style (such as lack of clove character in a Bavarian weizen) generally results in a maximum score around 30. Also, note the cut-off score of 21 determines if a beer adequately represents a particular style.

A beer that is strongly infected or that contains a flaw so severe that it makes the beer undrinkable can be assigned a score of 13. However, this is simply a guideline. If the flaws are so bad that even a 13 is generous, judges can score lower. Simply justify your score using a bottoms-up method; assign points for positive attributes that are present. Give the benefit of the doubt for low-scoring beers. A score of 13 makes the point that the beer is essentially undrinkable; lower scores can be taken as spiteful. If you do score lower than 13, strive to make as many useful comments as possible on how the brewer can improve the beer. Always look for positive comments to make about a beer, and then let the brewer know what aspects of the beer need attention and how to correct any flaws.

Procedure

Beers should be evaluated using the following procedure:



Prepare a scoresheet. Write the entry number, style category and subcategory names and numbers, your name, and any other necessary information (e.g., judge rank, your phone number of e-mail, etc.) on a scoresheet or apply a pre-printed label.

Visually inspect the bottle (if given the bottle). Check the bottle for fill level, clarity, sediment, and signs of problems (e.g., a ring around the neck of the bottle). Identification of such characteristics may be helpful in describing flaws that are discovered during the formal evaluation process. However, be careful not to prejudge the beer based on a visual inspection of the bottle.

Pour the beer into clean sampling cup, making an effort to agitate the beer enough to produce a generous head (but not enough to produce a head large enough to interfere with drinking the beer). For highly carbonated beers (large enough to interfere with drinking the beer), this may require pouring carefully into a tilted cup. For beers with low carbonation, this may require pouring directly into the center of the cup, with a 6 inch drop from the bottle. Pour each entry in a manner that gives it its optimum appearance, keeping in mind that some entries may be over- or under-carbonated.

Smell the beer. As soon as the beer is poured, swirl the cup, bring it to your nose, and inhale the beer's aroma several times. When a beer is cold, it may be necessary to swirl the beer in the cup, warm the beer by holding it between your hands, or putting your hand on the top of the cup to allow the volatiles to accumulate in a great enough concentration to be detected. Write your impressions of the beers aromas. Particularly, note any off aromas that you detect. Do not assign scores for aroma yet.

Visually inspect the beer. Give your nose a rest, and score the appearance of the beer. Tilt the cup, and examine it through backlighting. For darker beers, it may be necessary to use a small flashlight to adequately illuminate the beer. Examine the beer's color, clarity, and head retention. Write comments about the degree to which the color, clarity, and head retention are appropriate for the intended style and record a score. Score the beer for appearance, allocating a maximum of two (one of the new scoresheet) points for each of these characteristics.

Smell the beer again. Again, swirl the cup, bring it to your nose, and inhale the beer's aromas several times. Note how the beer's aroma changes as the beer warms and the volatiles begin to dissipate. Write your impressions of the beers aromas, noting particularly the appropriateness of the malt, hops, yeast, and fermentation byproduct aromas. Also, note any lingering off aromas. Do not assign scores for aroma yet.

Taste the beer. Take about 1 ounce of beer into your mouth, and coat the inside of your mouth with it. Be sure to allow the beer to make contact with your lips, gums, teeth, palate, and the top, bottom, and sides of your tongue. Swallow the beer, and exhale through your nose. Write down your impressions of the initial flavors of the beer (malt, hops, alcohol, sweetness), intermediate flavors (additional hop/malt flavor, fruitiness, diacetyl, sourness), aftertaste (hop bitterness, oxidation, astringency), and conditioning (appropriateness of level for style). Do not assign scores for flavor yet.

Score the beer for body (mouthfeel on the new). Take another mouthful of beer and note the appropriateness of the beer's viscosity for the intended style. Write comments concerning your impression and assign between 2 and 5 points with higher numbers reflecting appropriate mouthfeel and lower numbers indicating increasing levels of lightness or heaviness for the intended style.

Evaluate the beer for overall impression. Relax. Take a deep breath. Smell the beer again, and taste it again. Pause to consider where the beer belongs in the overall range of scores (e.g., excellent, very good, good, drinkable, problem) and where similar beers are ranked within the judging flight. If you use a top-down decision making strategy, assign an overall score to the beer, then mentally subtract points from the remaining subcategories (i.e., aroma and flavor), consistent with your impressions of how the beer is deficient. Use the overall impression category to adjust your final score to the level you feel is appropriate for this beer. If you use a bottom-up decision making strategy, assign scores to each of the remaining subcategories (i.e., aroma and flavor), and assign a score for overall impression. Finally, write prescriptive suggestions for improving the beer in light of any deficiencies you noted in your evaluation. Also, check any boxes on the left side of the scoresheet that are consistent with your comments.

Check your scoresheet. Add your category scores. If you use a bottom up approach, double check to make sure you added correctly. If you use a top down approach, make sure that your subcategory scores sum to equal your overall score. When the other judges have finished scoring the beer, discuss the technical and stylistic merits of the beer and arrive at a consensus score. Be prepared to adjust your scores to make them fall within 7 points of the other judges at your table.

Notes on Smelling the Beer

When a beer judge smells a beer, the judge is literally inhaling small particles of the beer. The sense of smell works by detecting molecules that are diffused into the air. These molecules are inhaled into the sinus cavity where receptors (olfactory cells) detect and translate the chemical information contained in the molecules into information that the brain can interpret. Several things influence a judge's ability to detect the variety of aromas in beer.

First, there are different densities of the receptors found in different people. Hence, some judges may simply be more sensitive to odors than are other judges.

Second, the receptor cells can be damaged through exposure to strong substances (e.g., ammonia, nasal drugs), and this damage may take several weeks to heal.

Third, changes in the thickness of the mucus that lines the nasal cavity may influence a judge's sensitivity. Any molecules that are detected by the olfactory cells must pass through a mucus lining, so daily changes in the thickness of that lining influences our sensitivity from day to day. The thickness of the lining can be influenced by sickness (e.g., colds), or exposure to a variety of allergens or irritants (e.g., pet dander, dust, smoke, perfume, spicy foods). Therefore, judges need to take into account their current levels of sensitivity, given their health and exposure to substances that could interfere with their sense of smell.

Finally, the olfactory cells become desensitized to repeated exposure to the same odors. As a result, a beer judge may be less able to detect subtle aromas as a judging session progresses. One way to remedy this problem is to occasionally take deep inhales of fresh air to flush the nasal cavity. Another way to lessen desensitization to certain odors is to sniff something that has a completely different odor (e.g., sniffing your sleeve) (Eby, 1993; Palamand, 1993).

Regardless of a judge's ability to detect various odors in beer, that ability is useless if the judge cannot use accurately descriptive terms to communicate information to the brewer. Hence, it is important for beer judges to build a vocabulary for describing the variety of odors (and knowledge of the source of those odors). Meilgaard (1993) presents a useful taxonomy of beer-related odors. His organizational scheme categorizes 33 aromas into 9 overall categories (oxidized, sulfury, fatty, phenolic, caramelized, cereal, resinous, aromatic, and sour). Beer judges should make efforts to expand their scent recognition and vocabulary.

Notes on Tasting the Beer

The sense of taste is very similar to the sense of smell. Taste is the sense through which the chemical constituents of a solid are detected and information about them is transmitted to the brain. The molecules are detected by five types of taste buds that are on the tongue and throat; some areas of the tongue are more sensitive to certain basic flavors than others, but the commonly-referenced Tongue Taste Map has been debunked. For example, you can taste bitterness more towards the back of your tongue, but the entire tongue can taste it. The five basic tastes detected by the tongue are sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness and umami (savoriness).

Since all of these flavors are present in beer, it is important that beer judges completely coat the inside of their mouths with beer when evaluating it and that the beer be swallowed. As is true for the scent receptors in the nose, different people have different densities of taste buds and, thus, have different sensitivities to various flavors. Also, taste buds can be damaged (e.g., being burnt by hot food or through exposure to irritants like spicy foods, smoking, or other chemicals), so a judges sensitivity may be diminished until tastebuds can regenerate (about 10 days). Judges need to be aware of their own sensitivities and take into account recent potential sources of damage when evaluating beers. In addition, taste buds can be desensitized to certain flavors because of residual traces of other substances in the mouth. Therefore, it is best for judges to rinse their mouths between beers and to cleanse their palates with bread or salt-free crackers (Eby, 1993; Palamand, 1993).

Of course, as is true for the sense of smell, a judge's ability to taste substances in beer is useless unless that judge can accurately identify the substance and use appropriate vocabulary to communicate that information to a brewer. Meilgaard's (1993) categorization system for beer flavors includes 6 general categories (fullness, mouthfeel, bitter, salt, sweet, and sour) consisting of 14 flavors that may be present in beer. Judges should continually improve their abilities to detect flavors that are in beer, their abilities to use appropriate words to describe those perceptions, and their knowledge of the sources of those flavors so that brewers can be provided with accurate and informative feedback concerning how to improve recipes and brewing procedures.

Notes on Making Comments About Beer

There are five things to keep in mind as you write comments about the beers you judge:

First, your comments should be as positive as possible. Acknowledge the good aspects of the beer rather than focusing only on the negative characteristics. Not only does this help make any negative comments easier to take as a brewer, but it gives your evaluation more credibility.

Second, and related, be polite in everything that you write about a beer. Sarcastic and deprecating remarks should never be made on a scoresheet.

Third, be descriptive and avoid using ambiguous terms like "nice." Instead, use words to describe the aroma, appearance, and flavors of the beer.

Fourth, be diagnostic. Provide the brewer with possible causes for undesirable characteristics, and describe how the recipe or brewing procedure could be adjusted to eliminate those characteristics.

Finally, be humble. Do not speculate about things that you do not know (e.g. whether the beer is extract or all-grain), and apologize if you cannot adequately describe (or diagnose) characteristics of the beer that are undesirable.

Other Considerations

Before the Event

Before a judging event, you should take steps to mentally and physically prepare yourself. Thoroughly familiarize yourself with the style(s) that you will judge if you know what those styles are ahead of time. Sample a few commercial examples and review the style guidelines and brewing procedures for those styles. Also, come to the event prepared to judge. Bring a mechanical pencil, a bottle opener, a flashlight, and any references that you might need to evaluate the beers. Also, make sure to come to the event in the right frame of mind. Get adequate rest the night before; shower; avoid heavily scented soaps, shampoos, and perfumes; avoid eating spicy foods and drinking excessively; and avoid taking medication that might influence your ability to judge (e.g., decongestants). You can also prepare your stomach for a day of beer drinking by drinking plenty of water and eating a dinner that contains foods that contain fats the night before the event and by eating extra sugar the morning of the event (e.g., donuts) (Harper, 1997).

Fatigue & Errors

During a judging flight, it is important to keep in mind that errors can creep into your judging decisions as a result of fatigue (palate or physical), distractions, or the order in which beers are presented. More specifically, judges may tend to assign scores (central scoring) in a much narrower range as time progresses simply because palate fatigue causes the beers to taste more and more similar over time. Conversely, judges may assign one or two beers much higher scores than other beers simply because they stand out as being much more flavorful (extreme scoring). In addition, as judges become tired (and possibly intoxicated) during long flights, they may allow impressions of some very noticeable characteristics of particular beers to overly influence their perceptions (and scores) of other characteristics of the beers (halo effect). For example, a weizen that is too dark may (falsely) also seem too heavy and caramel-flavored. Also during long flights, judges need to be mindful of the fact that proximity errors (e.g., assigning scores that are too high to a beer that follows a poor example of the style) and drift (e.g., assigning progressively lower (or higher) scores to beers as time progresses) may influence the validity of the scores that they assign (Wolfe, 1996; Wolfe & Wolfe, 1997).

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to know when errors such as these have crept into your judgments. Therefore, it is extremely important to retaste all of the beers in a flight, especially the ones in the top half of the flight. In general, most flights should contain less than 12 beers, so this would entail retasting at least the 6 that receive the highest scores. Each beer should be carefully reevaluated to make sure that the rank ordering of the assigned scores reflects your overall impression of the actual quality of the beers. Only after retasting and discussion of these impressions should awards be assigned to beers within the flight. Note that the competition coordinator may request that you readjust your scores to reflect any discrepancies between the ordering of awards and the ordering of assigned scores.

When You Are Finished

When you have finished judging a flight of beers, make sure that your scoresheets are complete, that the scoresheets have been organized in a way that the competition organizer can identify the scores and the awards that you assigned, and that the table at which you judged is ready to for another judging flight or that (following the final flight of the day) it is cleaned. Most importantly, avoid causing distractions to other judges who have not yet finished judging their flights (e.g., loud conversations, interrupting judges who are still making decisions, etc.). In fact, this would be a good time to leave the judging area for a beer or a breath of fresh air. Also, be conscientious in what you say to others about the beers that you judged. It is often tempting to tell others about the worst beer in your flight or to make remarks about the overall poor quality of entries that you judged. Not only are comments such as these in poor taste, but since you do not know who entered the beers that you judged, you may offend the person to whom you are talking (or judges who are still judging).

Practicing

Of course, one of the best (and most enjoyable) things that you can do to maintain your judging skills is to continually practice by sampling a variety of beers and brewing your own beers. In addition to visiting pubs and microbreweries, you can sample homebrew regularly by attending homebrew club meetings. Entering beers in competitions is also a practical way to compare your flavor perception and troubleshooting skills with those of experienced judges. You can also brush up on your judging skills by coordinate tasting sessions and mini-competitions with other judges or by sampling beers that have been "doctored" to simulate common flavors and flaws in beer (Wolfe & Leith, 1997). Dr. Beer ® is a commercial example of this program, but several authors have described methods for preparing beers using readily- available ingredients (Guinard & Robertson, 1993; Papazian & Noonan, 1993; Papazian, 1993). Guidelines for a doctored beer session are also given at the end of the BJCP Exam Study Course later in this section.

References and Additional Reading

Eby, D.W., "Sensory aspects of zymological evaluation" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 39-54.

Guinard, J.X. and Robertson, I., "Sensory evaluation for brewers" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 55-74.

Harper, T., "Scrutinize. Swirl. Sniff. Sip. Swallow. Scribble.: The Six Habits of Highly Effective Great American Beer Festival Judges'" Sky (September, 29-31, 1997).

Konis, T., "Origins of normal and abnormal flavors" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 91-104.

Meilgaard, M.C., "The flavor of beer" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 15-38.

Palamand, R., "Training ourselves in flavor perception and tasting" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 115-131.

Papazian, C., "Evaluating beer" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 3-14.

Papazian, C., "Testing yourself" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 215-223.

Papazian, C. and Noonan, G., "Aroma identification" in Evaluating Beer (Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1993), pp. 199-214.

Wolfe, E.W., "Unbeknownst to the right honourable judge: Or how common judging errors creep into organized beer evaluations" Brewing Techniques, v. 4(2), 56-59 (1996).

Wolfe, E.W. and Wolfe, C.L., "Questioning order in the court of beer judging: A study of the effect of presentation order in beer competitions," Brewing Techniques, v. 5(2), 44-49 (1997).

Wolfe, E.W. and Leith, T., "Calibrating judges at remote locations: The Palate Calibration Project," submitted to Brewing Techniques (1997).

C. Important BJCP Reference Materials

Current competition materials can be found on the BJCP website in the Competition Center. Other important BJCP references include the most current program rules, information and structure. These documents can be found in the following locations:

BJCP Beer Scoresheet /docs/SCP_BeerScoreSheet.pdf

BJCP Cover Sheet /docs/SCP_CoverSheet.pdf

BJCP Judge Instructions /docs/SCP_JudgeInstructions.pdf

Judge Procedures Manual /docs/Judge_Procedures_Manual.pdf

BJCP Competition Requirements /rules.php

BJCP Member's Guide /membergd.php

Sample Scoresheets /examscores.php

Mastering the BJCP Exam /docs/mastering.pdf

Overview

The BJCP exam is closed book and consists of an essay portion worth 70 percent and a tasting portion worth 30 percent of the total score. On the essay portion, there are ten questions covering beer styles and brewing techniques, with the latter focusing on the relationship of ingredients and the brewing process to flavors in the finished beer. The style questions typically ask for descriptions and comparisons of related beer styles, including information on the historical development, ingredients, style parameters, commercial examples and the brewing process. See the following two sections for a list of the BJCP exam questions and an example of an answer with enough content and depth to receive a very high mark. In addition to style and technical questions, since judges represent the BJCP, part of one question asks for a brief description of the purpose and levels of judging program. It should be noted that although the current exams are formed from a large pool of essay questions, the BJCP exam committee is currently investigating the feasibility of replacing some of these with short-answer, true/false, or multiple choice questions.

The exam is criteria-based, so if the essay questions are not answered correctly or do not contain enough information (a good rule of thumb is one page per answer), then it will be difficult to get a passing score on the written portion. Similarly, if the descriptions and feedback on the beer scoresheets are weak, it will be difficult to pass the tasting portion. The recommended materials should therefore be read before the study sessions and reviewed along with the BJCP Study Guide before the exam. The style categories in the questions below are based on the BJCP Guidelines, which are also used by the AHA for its national homebrew competition.

The tasting portion of the BJCP exam requires the judging of four beers as if one were at a competition, with the scoresheets evaluated on the basis on scoring accuracy, perception, descriptive ability, feedback and completeness. Grading is done by volunteer National and Master judges, with their scores and feedback reviewed by both an associate exam director and an exam director. These reviews ensure that the scores from different exams and graders are consistent between different exams and with the criteria expected for the different judging levels.

The following is from the instructions to the BJCP exam. It clearly states what a complete answer to the typical exam question should contain.

For a passing score, beer style descriptions must include the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel descriptions as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. If time permits, for maximum credit, a more complete answer should consider the history of the style, geography, commercial examples, style parameters, unique ingredients, and fermentation techniques and conditions. When a question asks for a classic commercial example of a style the correct answer is one of the styles listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines.

Although we have never had a real problem in this regard, it is BJCP policy to protect the integrity of the BJCP exam. Modern electronic devices make it too difficult for an exam administrator to be certain people aren't cheating, so exam instructions now include the following:

Electronic Devices

Use of the following electronic devices are not allowed during the exam:

Calculators, except for basic four-function models

Pagers

PDAs

Laptop or desktop computers

Cell phones (In case of an emergency, phones may be left with the Administrator with instructions for answering.)

Walkman/iPod or other listening devices

Headphones of any type

Examinees with any special needs are required to contact the Exam Director to work out specific procedures a minimum of 6 weeks in advance of the exam date.

The Classic BJCP and Boiling Question

This question was replaced with two new parts, and each part is still worth 5 of the 100 points allocated to the written portion of the exam:

A fill-in-the-blanks question about the primary purpose of the BJCP and the BJCP judge levels and their requirements. The actual exam will look like the following: This part of Section 1 is worth 5 of the 100 points possible on the essay portion. List three primary purposes of the BJCP as listed on / and in the BJCP Study Guide. 1. _____________________________________ 2. _____________________________________ 3. _____________________________________ Complete the grid with the 7 principal BJCP Judge Levels, excluding honorary ranks, and the requirements to earn each of them (for 2.5 points). BJCP Level Minimum Exam Score Total Experience Points Minimum Judging Points GM Service Requirements Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No

A set of 15 true/false questions based on the BJCP Judge Procedures Manual. Each individual question is worth one-third of a point, giving five points for a completely correct answer. The 15 questions are drawn from the following pool of true/false questions: Number Answer Question 1 T A competition organizer may serve as the judge director and may also serve as a judge, provided this person has no knowledge of the association between entries and entrants. (Note: The competition organizer may NOT receive judging experience points if they serve as judge.) 2 T A judge director may serve as a judge, provided this person has no knowledge of the association between entries and entrants. 3 T A competition organizer may serve as the judge director, provided this person has no knowledge of the association between the association between entries and entrants. 4 F A judge director may not serve as a judge, even if this person has no knowledge of the association between entries and entrants. 5 F A competition organizer may not serve as a judge, even if this person has no knowledge of the association between entries and entrants. 6 T A judge director may serve as the competition organizer and may also serve as a judge, provided this person has no knowledge of the association between entries and entrants. 7 T If an individual has knowledge of the association between entries and entrants they may not serve as a judge. 8 T A competition organizer may serve as a judge, provided this person does not divulge information about entries and entrants to other judges. 9 T The "head" judge at a table should try to tutor apprentice or lower-rank judges if time permits. 10 F The steward at the table has sole responsibility for completing the Cover Sheets for beers in each flight. 11 T The "head" judge at the table has sole responsibility for completing the Cover Sheets for beers in each flight. 12 T The "head" judge at a table should fill out Cover Sheets for beers in his or her flight as directed by the competition management. 13 F The "head" judge at a table has no responsibility for filling out Cover Sheets for beers in his or her flight as directed by the competition management. 14 T The "head" judge at the table has sole responsibility for completing the Cover Sheets for beers in each flight but with the agreement of the steward may delegate the completion of the Cover Sheets to the steward. 15 T The "head" judge, with the agreement of the steward, may delegate filling in of the Cover Sheets for beers in his or her flight to the steward. 16 F There is no need for the "head" judge to complete the Flight Summary Sheet - the competition organizer can obtain all that information from the cover sheets. 17 T If possible, there should be at least one BJCP-ranked judge in every flight. 18 T When novice judges evaluate entries in a competition, each novice should be paired with a BJCP judge. 19 T Novice judges may only evaluate entries if authorized by the judge director, and novices should be paired with BJCP judges when possible. 20 T To reduce stray odors and flavors present, beverages and foods other than water, bread or crackers should not be brought to the judging table. 21 F It is acceptable to bring food items other than bread, crackers, and water to the judging table. 22 F You must filter out strong scents from fellow judges or the environment from your mind rather than discussing the problem with the competition organizer. 23 T Strong scents from the environment or other judges or stewards should be brought to the attention of the competition organizer. 24 F Because entries cannot have any identifying marks, it is OK for a judge to judge beers in a category he or she has entered. 25 T If a judge is assigned to judge a category that he/she has entered, that judge should ask the competition organizer to reassign him/her to another category. 26 F If assigned to judge a category that he or she has entered a judge should just judge the category without notifying the judge director or competition organizer. 27 F Judges should not review the sub-style being judged from the BJCP Style Guidelines while at the judging table prior to judging that style. 28 T Judges may invite stewards to taste the beers in a flight, if there's enough sample to share. 29 T It is acceptable to change the order in which you judge the beers on your flight sheet from how it was printed. 30 F Beers must be evaluated in the sequence specified on the flight sheet. 31 F If you have eaten spicy or greasy food within a few hours prior to judging, you should use mouthwash or antiseptic rinse before judging. 32 T You should avoid eating spicy or greasy food within a few hours prior to judging. 33 T Spicy and/or hot foods should be avoided prior to a judging event because they can reduce a judge's sensitivity to the aromas and flavors of beer. 34 T Perfumed shampoos and colognes should be avoided prior to a judging event because they can reduce a judge's sensitivity to the aromas of beer. 35 F It is a good idea to take a decongestant prior to a judging event to increase your sensitivity to the aromas of beer. 36 F Calibrations beers are selected to be the standard against which entries should be judged. 37 T It is the responsibility of the "head" judge, in consultation with the other judges in a flight, to assign a consensus score to each entry. 38 F It is not necessary for scores produced by the judges on a panel to be within seven points or each other. 39 T After discussing the initial scores, judges should adjust their final scores to be within seven points. 40 T Judges must adjust their scores to be within seven points (or less if directed by the competition director) of each other as part of developing a consensus score for the beer. 41 T The consensus score assigned to the beer is not necessarily an average score. 42 T It is important to be quick as well as to write your scoresheets thoroughly and completely. 43 T On average, experienced judges should be able to completely evaluate a beer, including arriving at a consensus, in 10 minutes. 44 F When there is a discrepancy in the scores for a given beer, the lower-ranked judges should yield to the opinion of the highest ranked BJCP judge at the table. 45 T It is acceptable to remove offensive smelling entries from the judging table after they have been evaluated. 46 F A judge must disqualify an entry if it has raised lettering or the cap has identifying marks. 47 F A judge may disqualify an entry if it has an improper bottle or cap. 48 T Only the judge director or competition organizer can disqualify an entry. 49 T The results of the bottle inspection does not affect the scoring. 50 T Snide or rude comments are unacceptable on scoresheets. 51 T Pour each entry in a manner that gives it its optimum appearance, keeping in mind that some entries may be over- or under-carbonated. 52 F When you suspect an entry has been placed in the wrong flight based on the style being judged, you should request that it be judged in a different flight instead. 53 T When you suspect an entry has been placed in the wrong flight based on the style being judged, you should consult with the judge director or competition organizer. 54 T Sniff the entry immediately after pouring to ensure proper evaluation of volatile aromatics. 55 F There is no need to sniff the aroma immediately after pouring the entry into the glass. 56 T Complete judging of one entry before moving on to the next entry. 57 F It is not necessary to offer any feedback for improvement if you score a beer above 40. 58 T It is common practice to refrain from sharing your thoughts while judging a beer until the other judges have completed their scoresheet. 59 F If you are very familiar with a beer style, it is preferable to disregard the BJCP Style Guidelines and rely on your personal expertise instead. 60 F If rushed, it's OK to write only comments and an overall score on a scoresheet, leaving the scores for the subsections blank. 61 F If rushed, it's OK to write only 1-2 comments on a scoresheet as long as the numeric score is filled out. 62 F If a beer is a "gusher" or has an unpleasant aroma upon opening, a judge may assign a courtesy score of 13 without tasting and commenting on the characteristics of the beer. 63 T All beers should be tasted and scored, even if they are "gushers" or have an unpleasant aroma upon opening. 64 F It is appropriate to penalize the entrant if the beer is not served at the proper temperature. 65 T If the beers are not served at the proper temperature work with the competition staff to resolve the problem. 66 F In each section of a scoresheet, you should only comment upon the most prominent features of each entry, not subtle characteristics. 67 F Judges' comments must not include phrases like "if you used .." 68 F Judges' comments must not include phrases like "did you .." 69 T Judges' comments must include a complete evaluation of the sensory aspects of the entry and how those aspects relate to the style guidelines. 70 T Judges' comments should be constructive and reflect knowledge of the brewing, fermentation, bottling, and handling process. 71 T Judges' comments need to provide information on how to improve the entry as warranted. 72 T Scores should not be assigned to the aroma section immediately because the entry's aroma profile may change over time. 73 F Each section must be scored with a number prior to writing any comments, to best capture your first impressions. 74 F To assure objectivity, you should never write your full name or put contact information on the scoresheet. 75 T You should write your full name and judging rank on each scoresheet. 76 T You should always fill out the "Style Scales" on the scoresheet, as a good check against your scores. 77 F You should use the "Overall Impression" section of the scoresheet to refer to how the entry compares to other entries in the flight. 78 T You should use the "Overall Impression" section of the scoresheet to comment on how much you enjoyed the entry or provide suggestions for how to improve the beer. 79 T A score in the "Outstanding" range is reserved for beers that not only lack flaws but also have the hard-to-define "extraordinary" character that great beers have. 80 F The courteous lower limit for scores assigned to "Problematic" beers is 6 points-one point for each section of the scoresheet. 81 T The courteous lower limit for scores assigned to "Problematic" beers is 13 points. 82 F If judges require more pours than one bottle to judge an entry, the "head" judge should ask the steward to request a second bottle from the cellar master. (Note: The emphasis here is on learning to judge a beer with just a few ounces in your glass. Obviously, for a gusher you would request a second bottle if it was available but you should not ask for an additional bottle just because you are pouring too much.) 83 F It is preferable to use ink on scoresheets so that your scores and comments cannot be altered by contest personnel. 84 T It is preferable to use mechanical pencils, rather than wooden pencils, on scoresheets so that wood odors do not interfere with beer aromas. 85 T It is acceptable to request a second bottle to give the entry a fair chance at an accurate judging if a beer is a "gusher" or tastes infected. 86 T Entrants may contact the judge, the competition director, or their BJCP Regional Representative if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of their scoresheets. 87 T When your flight has finished, you should avoid having conversations that might distract other judges who have not yet finished their flights. 88 F When your flight has finished, it is OK to visit other flights still in progress to see how beers you have entered are faring. 89 T Because it may have been entered by a person in the room, it is polite to refrain from publicly deriding a "problem" beer that you have scored during a competition. 90 T Judges from outside the table should not be consulted on a beer unless the judges at the table cannot reach a consensus score, and then only if they all agree to the consultation.

The Remainder of the Written Portion

The remainder of the written portion of the exam still consists of nine free-form essay questions, each worth 10 points. They will be a combination of "Style" questions and "Troubleshooting" questions, based on the idea that knowledge of brewing techniques is as important to a beer judge as knowledge of beer styles.

The Style Related Questions

For the style-related questions, the allocation of the 10 points available for each answer is explicit in the exam question. The questions are now of the form:

S0. For each of the three sub-styles style-1, style-2, and style-3, provide a statement describing the sub-styles as well as the differences and similarities between them by addressing each of the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each sub-style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 2 points Identify at least one aspect of the ingredients (malts, hops, water chemistry) or background information (history, fermentation techniques and conditions, or serving methods) that distinguishes each sub-style. 1 point For each of the sub-styles, name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 1 point Describe the similarities and differences between the three sub-styles.

The styles groupings for question S0 are drawn from the following list:

Style-1 Style-2 Style-3 American Amber Ale American Pale Ale California Common Beer American Amber Ale American Brown Ale American Pale Ale American Amber Ale American Pale Ale California Common Beer American Barleywine Old Ale Strong Scotch Ale American Brown Ale American Pale Ale California Common Beer American Brown Ale Mild Northern English Brown Ale American Brown Ale Mild Southern English Brown Ale American IPA English IPA Imperial IPA American Pale Ale Belgian Pale Ale Extra Special/Strong Bitter (English Pale Ale) American Pale Ale English Barleywine Strong Scotch Ale American Stout Dry Stout Foreign Extra Stout American Stout Dry Stout Oatmeal Stout American Stout Dry Stout Robust Porter American Stout Dry Stout Sweet Stout American Stout Foreign Extra Stout Oatmeal Stout American Stout Foreign Extra Stout Robust Porter American Stout Foreign Extra Stout Sweet Stout American Wheat or Rye Beer Straight (unblended) Lambic Weizen/Weissbier American Wheat or Rye Beer Weizen/Weissbier Roggenbier (German Rye Beer) Baltic Porter Belgian Dark Strong Ale Imperial Stout Belgian Blond Ale Belgian Dubbel Belgian Tripel Belgian Blond Ale Belgian Golden Strong Ale Belgian Tripel Berliner Weisse Flanders Red Ale Straight (unblended) Lambic Bière de Garde California Common Beer North German Altbier Bohemian Pilsener Classic American Pilsner German Pilsner (Pils) Bohemian Pilsener German Pilsner (Pils) Premium American Lager Bohemian Pilsener German Pilsner (Pils) Standard American Lager Brown Porter Dry Stout Robust Porter Brown Porter Mild Southern English Brown Ale Brown Porter Munich Dunkel Northern English Brown Ale Brown Porter Munich Dunkel Schwarzbier Brown Porter Munich Dunkel Southern English Brown Ale California Common Beer Irish Red Ale Oktoberfest/Märzen Cream Ale Kölsch Munich Helles Dark American Lager Munich Dunkel Schwarzbier Doppelbock Eisbock Maibock/Helles Bock Doppelbock Eisbock Traditional Bock Doppelbock Maibock/Helles Bock Traditional Bock Dortmunder Export German Pilsner (Pils) Munich Helles Dry Stout Foreign Extra Stout Sweet Stout Dry Stout Robust Porter Schwarzbier Düsseldorf Altbier Irish Red Ale North German Altbier Düsseldorf Altbier North German Altbier Oktoberfest/Märzen Düsseldorf Altbier Oktoberfest/Märzen Special/Best/Premium Bitter Eisbock Maibock/Helles Bock Traditional Bock English Barleywine Old Ale Strong Scotch Ale Foreign Extra Stout Robust Porter Sweet Stout Irish Red Ale North German Altbier Oktoberfest/Märzen Mild Scottish Light 60/- Standard/Ordinary Bitter North German Altbier Oktoberfest/Märzen Special/Best/Premium Bitter Scottish Heavy 70/- Scottish Export 80/- Strong Scotch Ale Scottish Light 60/- Scottish Export 80/- Strong Scotch Ale Scottish Light 60/- Scottish Heavy 70/- Strong Scotch Ale Standard/Ordinary Bitter Special/Best/Premium Bitter Extra Special/Strong Bitter (English Pale Ale) Straight (unblended) Lambic Weizen/Weissbier Witbier

S1. Identify three top-fermenting beer styles where the minimum original gravity is 1.070 or higher. For each style provide a statement describing the style as well as the differences and similarities between the styles by addressing the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each sub-style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 2 points Identify at least one aspect of the ingredients (malts, hops, water chemistry) or background information (history, fermentation techniques and conditions, or serving methods) that distinguishes each sub-style. 1 point For each of the sub-styles name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 1 point Describe the similarities and differences between the three sub-styles.

S2. Identify three distinctly different German bottom-fermented beer styles. Beer styles that are variations of each other based on color, strength or other similarly subtle differences do not count as distinctly different for the purposes of this question. For each style provide a statement describing the style as well as the differences and similarities between the styles by addressing the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each sub-style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 2 points Identify at least one aspect of the ingredients (malts, hops, water chemistry) or background information (history, fermentation techniques and conditions, or serving methods) that distinguishes each sub-style. 1 point For each of the sub-styles name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 1 point Describe the similarities and differences between the three sub-styles.

S3. Identify three distinctly different beer styles that contain wheat as 25% or more of the grist. Beer styles that are variations of each other based on color, strength or other subtle differences do not count as distinctly different for the purposes of this question. For each style provide a statement describing the style, as well as the differences and similarities between the styles by addressing the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each sub-style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 2 points Identify at least one aspect of the ingredients (malts, hops, water chemistry) or background information (history, fermentation techniques and conditions, or serving methods) that distinguishes each sub-style. 1 point For each of the sub-styles name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 1 point Describe the similarities and differences between the three sub-styles.

S4. Identify three distinctly different Belgian beer styles. For each style provide a statement describing the style as well as the differences and similarities between the styles by addressing the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each sub-style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 2 points Identify at least one aspect of the ingredients (malts, hops, water chemistry) or background information (history, fermentation techniques and conditions, or serving methods) that distinguishes each sub-style. 1 point For each of the sub-styles name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 1 point Describe the similarities and differences between the three sub-styles.

S5. Complete the attached scoresheet marked with "Classic Example Scoresheet" as if you were judging a classic commercial example of the __________ style. You do not need to complete the Overall Impression section but otherwise the scoresheet should be completed as it would during a normal competition. You should describe a single exemplary sample of the style as if you are judging it during a competition.

Note: The style will vary for each exam, and could be just about any style other than the fruit, spice, herb and specialty categories that don't really have classic examples.

S6. Identify, describe, and give at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines of a major beer style commonly associated with the following three classic brewing centers:

Location One Location Two Location Three

Address the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 3 points Correctly identify the style associated with each location. 1 point For each of the styles name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines.

Bamberg Berlin Burton-on-Trent Dublin Düsseldorf Edinburgh Einbeck Köln (Cologne) Newcastle San Francisco Senne Valley Vienna

S7. Identify three top-fermenting beer styles where the maximum original gravity does not exceed 1.040. Beer styles that are variations of each other based on color, strength or other subtle differences do not count as distinctly different for the purposes of this question. For each style provide a statement describing the style as well as the differences and similarities between the styles by addressing the following topics:

6 points Describe the aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each sub-style as in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 2 points Identify at least one aspect of the ingredients (malts, hops, water chemistry) or background information (history, fermentation techniques and conditions, or serving methods) that distinguishes each sub-style. 1 point For each of the sub-styles name at least one classic commercial example as listed in the BJCP Style Guidelines. 1 point Describe the similarities and differences between the three sub-styles.

Troubleshooting

T1. Describe and discuss the following beer characteristics. What causes them and how are they avoided and controlled? Are they ever appropriate and if so, in what beer styles? (three will be given)

3 points Describe each characteristic. 4 points Identify the causes and controls for each characteristic. 3 points Identify appropriate/inappropriate styles.

The choices will be drawn from:

a) cloudiness b) buttery c) low head retention d) astringency e) phenolic f) light body g) fruitiness h) sourness i) cooked corn j) bitterness k) cardboard l) sherry-like m) acetaldehyde n) alcoholic

T2. Explain how the brewer gets the characteristics a) good head retention, b) clarity in a beer, and c) a proper diacetyl level for style in his/her beer:

3 points Describe each characteristic. 4 points Identify the causes and controls for each characteristic. 3 points Identify appropriate/inappropriate styles.

T3. What are body and mouthfeel? Explain how the brewer controls body and mouthfeel in his/her beer. Cover the following topics:

5 points Describe each characteristic. 5 points Identify the causes and controls for both.

Ingredients

T4. Discuss hops, describing their characteristics, how these characteristics are extracted, and at least four distinct beer styles with which the different varieties are normally associated. Address the following topics:

3 points Describe hop characteristics. 3 points Discuss how hop characteristics are extracted. 4 points Identify associated beer styles.

T5. Explain the malting process, identifying and describing the different types of malts by their color and the flavor they impart to the beer. Give at least four distinct styles with which specific malts are associated. Address the following topics:

3 points Describe the malting process. 3 points Identify types of malt. 4 points Identify associated beer styles.

T7. Describe the stages of yeast development and give five distinct considerations in selecting the appropriate yeast strain for a given beer style. Address the following topics:

5 points Describe the stages of yeast development. 5 points Provide five distinct selection considerations.

T8. Discuss the importance of water characteristics in the brewing process and how water has played a role in the development of at least four distinct world beer styles. Address the following topics:

5 points Describe the importance of water characteristics in the brewing process. 5 points Describe the role in the development of beer styles.

The Brewing Process

T9. Discuss the brewing techniques a) kräusening, b) adding gypsum, and c) fining. How do they affect the beer? Address the following topics:

5 points Describe each characteristic. 5 points Identify the effect on the finished beer.

T10. What is meant by the terms hot break and cold break? What is happening and why are they important in brewing and the quality of the finished beer? Address the following topics:

3 points Describe each term. 3 points Identify what is happening. 4 points Identify why it is important.

T11. Describe and explain the role of diastatic and proteolytic enzymes in the brewing process and how they affect the characteristics of the finished beer. Address the following topics:

5 points Describe what they are. 5 points Describe how the affect the finished beer.

T13. Explain what happens during the mashing process, including times and temperatures as appropriate. Describe three different mashing techniques and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Address the following topics:

5 points Describe the process. 3 points Identify three techniques. 2 points Identify advantages and disadvantages of each.

T14. Provide a complete ALL-GRAIN recipe for a <STYLE>, listing ingredients and their quantities, procedure, and carbonation. Give volume, as well as original and final gravities. Explain how the recipe fits the style's characteristics for aroma, flavor, appearance, mouthfeel, and other significant aspects of the style.

Styles may include:

Belgian Tripel Oktoberfest Classic American Pilsner Doppelbock American IPA Bohemian Pilsner Robust Porter Weizen German Pilsner Dry Stout English Pale Ale

1 point Target statistics (starting specific gravity, final specific gravity, and bitterness in IBUs or HBUs) and color (as SRM or a textual description of the color). 2 points Batch size, ingredients (grist, hops, water, and yeast) and their quantities. 3.5 points Mashing, boil, fermentation, packaging, and other relevant brewing procedures. 3.5 points Explain how the recipe fits the style's characteristics for aroma, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and other significant aspects of the style; and describe how the ingredients and processes used impact this style.

Q: Describe and differentiate Abbey and Trappist beers. Give commercial examples of each. (Note: This question is NOT used on the exam.)

A: The primary difference between Abbey and Trappist beers is that the latter is an appellation which restricts its production to the seven Trappist monasteries in the Low Countries. They are Chimay, Orval, Achel, Rochefort, Westmalle and Westvleteren in Belgium and Schaapskooi in the Netherlands. Abbey beers on the other hand, are brewed either at non-Trappist monasteries or by commercial breweries to which Abbeys have licensed their names. Commercial examples of these include Affligem, Leffe and Grimbergen.

Both Abbey and Trappist breweries are best known for the dubbel and tripel styles. The former is a tawny beer with an OG in the 1.060-75 range, 6-7.5% alcohol, and enough bitterness to balance, approximately 15-25 IBUs. The color is generally deep ruby to brown and derived from both Belgian specialty malts and caramelized candi sugar. The flavor is dominated by a full-bodied malty sweetness reminiscent of plums, raisins and black currents. Ester levels are generally subdued by Belgian standards, but some examples do have moderate bubble-gum or banana esters. Tripels, on the other hand, are much paler in color at 3-5 SRM, but have higher OG (1.075-85) and alcohol levels (7.5-9 %). The malts used are almost entirely pilsner, with light candi sugar used to increase the alcohol content and prevent the beer from being too cloying. Hop rates are higher at 25-38 IBUs, with some noble hop flavor and aroma acceptable. The ester levels are often more assertive in this style, though the increased alcohol content should be subtle. Westmalle Dubbel and Tripel are classic examples of these styles.

Some Trappist breweries also produce beers which would better fit into the strong ale category due to high ester levels or unusual brewing procedures. In the latter category are Chimay (Premiere, Cinq Cents and Grand Reserve) and Rochefort (6, 8 and 10) brews, which have very distinctive signatures from the yeast. One of the most unusual beers in Belgium is made by Orval, the only (readily available) beer brewed by that monastery. It has a moderate gravity in the 1.055-60 range, is dry hopped with Styrian Goldings and undergoes a secondary fermentation with a mixture of five yeast strains that includes Brettanomyces. As the beer ages, the flavors become more complex, picking up leathery/oaky and even phenolic notes from the yeast.

BJCP Exam Study Course, by Scott Bickham

The ten session course outlined below is a modification of ones that have been effective in preparing judges for the BJCP exam. One or two members of the study group are usually assigned to the task of collecting commercial and homebrewed examples of a given style. They should also prepare and distribute handouts that outline the background and characteristics of each style, as well as a technical topic relevant to the exam. All but one of the beers are then served blindly and discussed, with positive and negative attributes identified. After the tasting session, a technical topic concerning ingredients, the brewing process, or beer flavors is reviewed. Finally, the study group takes a mini-exam that consists of two essay questions taken from the BJCP question pool and judges the remaining beer using the BJCP beer scoresheet. The exam questions should be correlated with the style and technical information that was presented in the class, and there should be forty minute time limit that is well-matched to the three hours required for the actual exam. The total time for each class should be approximately three to four hours, depending on the number of commercial examples and depth of the presentations and discussions.

It should also be easy to persuade local beer experts to participate in the review sessions (bribery with free beer is very effective), but the work can also be divided among those studying for the exam. The commercial examples below are based on beers which are available in the Mid-Atlantic, but a similar collection can be assembled in other geographic areas. The number of beers served in each class should be limited to 8-10, depending on the alcoholic strength and sample size, to prevent palate fatigue and promote responsible drinking. It is also recommended that a flat fee be charged for the class, payable in advance or at the first study session. The Brewers United for Real Potables homebrew club set this fee at $50 for its most recent study course, and while this did not quite cover the actual expenses, the club gladly covered the remainder due to the intangible benefits of having an educated membership. This amount may seem a bit steep from the perspective of the participants, but keep in mind that they are tasting as many as one hundred commercial examples and picking up invaluable information about beers styles and the brewing process.

Class 1. Light Lagers: American Light (Budweiser, Coors, Michelob) and Pre-prohibition Pilsner, Bohemian and German Pilsners (Pilsner Urquell, Bitburger, DeGroen's), Dortmunder Export (Stoudt's Gold), Munich Helles (Augustiner Edelstoff Helles). Technical topic: Malt, including the malting process, types, adjuncts, kilning and the styles with which different malts are associated.



Class 2. Amber and Dark Lagers: Vienna (Dos Equis, Negra Modelo), Oktoberfest/Maerzen (Spaten, Paulaner), Munich Dunkel (Spaten), Schwarzbier (Koestrizer), Bock (Paulaner), Helles/Maibock (Ayinger, Fordham), Doppelbock (Paulaner Salvator, Ayinger Celebrator), Eisbock (Kulmbacher Reichelbrau). Technical topic: Water, including minerals, pH, hardness, adjustment, and the effect on the development of world beer styles.



Class 3. Bitters and Pale Ales: Ordinary (Boddington's Draught), Special (Young's Ramrod, Fuller's London Pride), ESB (Fuller's), English and American Pale Ales (Bass, Whitbread, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, Tupper's Hop Pocket), English and American IPA (Young's Special London Ale, Anchor Liberty, Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale), California Common (Anchor Steam). Technical topic: Mashing, including types used for different beer styles, mash schedules and enzymes.



Class 4. Brown, Scottish and Strong Scotch Ales: Light and Dark Mild (Grant's Celtic Ale), English and American Brown (Newcastle, Sam Smith's Nut Brown Ale, Brooklyn Brown Ale, Pete's Wicked Ale), Scottish Light, Heavy and Export (McEwen's Export, Belhaven, MacAndrew's), Scotch (McEwen's, Traquair House). Technical topic: Hops, including varieties, IBUs, hopping scheduled and the association with different beer styles.



Class 5. Stout and Porter: Dry Stout (Guinness Draught, Murphy's), Sweet Stout (Watney's, Mackeson's), Oatmeal Stout (Anderson Valley Barney Flats, Young's), Foreign and Imperial Stout (Sheaf Stout, Sam Smith's Imperial Stout, Victory Russian Imperial Stout), Brown Porter (Anchor, Sam Smith's Old Taddy Porter), Robust Porter (Sierra Nevada). Technical topic: Yeast and fermentation, including characteristics of different yeast strains, bacteria, by-products and relationship to world beer styles.



Class 6. Barleywines and Old Ales: English Old Ale (Theakston's Old Peculier, Thomas Hardy, Hair of the Dog Adambier), English and American Barleywines (Young's Old Nick, Sierra Nevada Bigfoot, Anchor Old Foghorn, Rogue Old Crustacean, Dominion Millenium, V ictory Old Horizontal). Technical topic: Brewing procedures, including sparging, boiling, fining and carbonation methods. Reasons for each should be discussed, along with potential problems.



Class 7. German Ales, Wheat Beers and Rauchbiers: Duesseldorf and North German Alt (Bolten Alt, Fordham Alt), Koelsch (none currently available), American Wheat (Pyramid Wheathook, Anchor Wheat), Bavarian Weizen (DeGroen's, Paulaner, Victory Sunrise, Schneider Weisse), Dunkelweizen (Hacker-Pschorr), Weizenbock (DeGroens, Schneider Aventinus), Berliner Weiss (Kindl), Bamberger Rauchbier (Kaiserdom, Schlenkerla). Technical topic: Troubleshooting I, which includes a discussion of how positive and negative attributes are perceived and produced, the beer styles with which they may be associated and corrective measures. The flavor descriptors on the beer scoresheet or the BJCP Study Guide should be split into two sections.



Class 8. Strong Belgian and French Ales: Dubbel (Affligem, La Trappe), Tripel (Affligem, Westmalle), Strong Golden and Dark Ales (Duvel, Chimay, Orval, Scaldis, La Chouffe), Biere de Garde (Jenlain, 3 Monts), Saison (Saison du Pont). Technical topic: Troubleshooting II.



Class 9. Other Belgian Ales: Oud Bruin and Flanders Red (Rodenbach Grand Cru, Liefman's Goudenband, Liefman's Framboise), Gueuze and Fruit Lambic (assorted Boon, Cantillon and Mort Subite), Wit (Celis White, Hoegaarden), Pale Ale (Corsendonk Pale, Celis Pale Bock). Technical topic: Recipe formulation, including the selection of appropriate hops, malt, water, yeast and brewing procedure for different beer styles.



Class 10. Doctored beer seminar. This is an informative and practical method of learning how isolated flavors taste in beer. A clean lager is generally doctored with near-threshold amounts of compounds which either occur naturally in beer or mimic those that do. Examples include artificial butter for diacetyl, sherry for sherry-like oxidation, vodka for alcohol, almond extract for nuttiness, grape tannin for astringency, hop oils for hop flavor and aroma, and lactic and acetic acid for sourness. Recommended amounts are given in the table below. Note that some of these compounds have very strong flavors, so they should be diluted in water or beer before adding to the base beer. For example, a detectable amount of lactic acid is approximately 0.4 ml of 88% USP lactic acid to a 12 oz. sample of beer. Since most of us do not have access to pipettes to measure such a small quantity, 1/8 tsp. may be added to 3/8 tsp distilled water, and 1/3 tsp of this solution added to the reference beer. This is equivalent to adding 1/12 tsp times 5 ml/tsp, or approximately 0.4 ml of lactic acid.

Recommended amounts of several substances are listed in the table at the end of this section. For more information on doctored beer seminars, contact Jay Hersh or refer to the Focus on Flavors column in Brewing Techniques. The base beer should be a clean light lager with a crown (non-twist-off) cap so that it can resealed after doctoring. The amounts in the table below are appropriate in a 12 oz. sample, but may be scaled to larger volumes. Note that spices and other solids should be extracted in vodka, since the addition of dry substances to a carbonated beer will cause gushing. For the same reason, the beers and adulterants should also be chilled to the same temperature before combining.

The material in these classes can be comfortable covered in a time frame of three to five months, depending on the needs and experience of the study group. Shorter courses have the advantage of keeping the material fresh, while longer courses allow more intensive reading and reviewing in between classes. Note that the lead time required to schedule a BJCP exam is approximately three months, so keep this in mind when planning the study sessions. For more information, e-mail may be sent to the BJCP Exam Directors.

Flavor Adulterant Quantity Sour/Acidic USP lactic acid 0.4 ml (1/3. tsp of solution of 1/8 tsp lactic acid plus 3/8 tsp distilled water) Sour/Acidic White wine vinegar 3/4 tsp Bitterness iso-hop extract 1 or 2 drops, to taste Sweetness sucrose (table sugar) 1/4 tsp dissolved in 1/2 tsp water Astringency Grape tannin 2 tsp. of solution of 1/8 tsp tannin dissolved in 5 Tbsp water Phenolic Chloroseptic 0.4 ml (1/3. tsp of solution of 1/8 tsp Chloroseptic plus 3/8 tsp distilled water) Clovelike Clove solution Make solution of 8 cloves soaked in 3 oz. of beer and add liquid to taste (about 4 tsp) Sulfitic Potassium metabisulfite* Make solution of one tablet dissolved in 3 oz. of beer and add to taste (about 1/2 tsp) Alcoholic Ethanol 2 tsp (increases alcohol by 2.7%). 3 tsp vodka may also be used Sherry-like Dry sherry 3/4 tsp Nutty Almond extract 0.1 ml (1/8 tsp of solution consisting of 1/8 tsp. almond extract plus 5/8 tsp. distilled water) Papery/Stale N/A Open bottles to air, reseal, and keep at 100 F or warmer for several days Winey White wine 2 Tbsp Diacetyl Butter extract 4-5 drops Estery Banana extract 6-7 drops Lightstruck N/A Expose commercial beer in green bottles to sunlight for 1-3 days.

* Should not be tasted by persons with asthma or sulfite allergies.

The material in these classes can be comfortable covered in a time frame of three to five months, depending on the needs and experience of the study group. Shorter courses have the advantage of keeping the material fresh, while longer courses allow more intensive reading and reviewing in between classes. Note that the lead time required to schedule a BJCP exam is approximately three months, so keep this in mind when planning the study sessions. For more information, e-mail may be sent to one of the BJCP exam directors.

Introduction, by David Houseman

The BJCP Style Guidelines use some specific terms with specialized meaning: Category, Subcategory and Style. When thinking of beer, mead and cider styles, the subcategory is the most important labelsubcategory means essentially the same thing as style and identifies the major characteristic of one type of beer, mead or cider. The larger categories (or style families are arbitrary groupings of beers, meads or ciders, usually with similar character but some subcategories are not necessarily related to others within the same category. The purpose of the structure within the BJCP Style Guidelines is to group styles of beer, mead and cider for competition purposes; do not attempt to derive additional meaning from these groupings.

Beer styles are not static but change over time in history as ingredients, brewing technology and consumer demand change. For example, the IPA described in the style guidelines originated in the UK, but is now rarely brewed due to the high taxes imposed on beers of this strength. History and geography highly impact the development of brewing; it is important that BJCP judges have an understanding of these factors. The examinee should be able to discuss these factors on the exam and use this depth of knowledge when providing feedback to brewers.

The beers documented in the BJCP Style Guidelines are those that are most commonly brewed by home brewers in the US. It is not a complete list of all known beers, even those available throughout the world today. This style guide is continually kept up to date as newer information is made available. Its purpose is to provide a definition of the commonly brewed beers which should be used by both the brewer and the judge as criteria against which each style is evaluated. This section and the BJCP Style Guidelines is not intended to be the complete source of information for the prospective BJCP judge. It's recommended that the potential judge read and study Michael Jackson's New World Guide to Beer and Beer Companion, the Classic Beer Style Series and other sources of information to obtain a co