Is this normal??? (competition question)

[tyrub42]

Hi Everyone,

I just entered a BJCP comp (outside of the US). I won my category, but they decided officially give me 'runner up' and have no winner; and said that it was more appropriate due to BJCP guidelines. I'm not angry about it, but I was/am super confused, and didn't get a real explanation except that they were trying to be more officially in line with the BJCP. My final assigned score was 33/50 if that's important. It's a NEIPA and I lost some points for things like haziness, but to be honest I expected that (I brew the beer I want to drink)

I couldn't find anything about this on the BJCP website, but I know many on this forum have joined competitions. Seems very strange to me, but it's my first BJCP comp. Is this normal?

 

[MaxStout]

Never heard of that being done at a comp. Maybe they're doing something like a reserve at an auction. If no one hits a pre-determined minimum score in a category, they withhold the first place prize.

In any case, it's a dick move by the comp. You scored top in category. You should be recognized as such.

 

[tyrub42]

It does seem bizarre to me, but I felt like I was making them feel like I was being a sore [winner? loser? lol, whichever] by trying to get them to make sense of it. Plus I'm a very obvious foreigner here so I was trying to tread a bit lightly. Either way they gave me the runner up trophy and threw the first place trophy away. They said it was the appropriate thing to do by BJCP guidelines, so maybe they're right and the BJCP just has weird comp rules.

 

[MaxStout]

It does seem bizarre to me, but I felt like I was making them feel like I was being a sore [winner? loser? lol, whichever] by trying to get them to make sense of it. Plus I'm a very obvious foreigner here so I was trying to tread a bit lightly. Either way they gave me the runner up trophy and threw the first place trophy away. They said it was the appropriate thing to do by BJCP guidelines, so maybe they're right and the BJCP just has weird comp rules.

Did you ask them to show you the BJCP rule that supports their position? If someone gave me a line like "it's because of BJCP...derp, derp" I would want them to show me the rule--chapter and verse.

If they don't (or won't) show you, then they're just moving the goalposts.

 

[tyrub42]

Yes, I asked them what rule they were talking about specifically, but they just said it isn't uncommon, and I wasn't the only one they did that to.

I said that I felt that was fairly ridiculous because I was the winner of my category but officially the runner up.

He said he disagreed.

At that point he was trying to find other people to back him up and it felt like it was getting awkward, so I just took my second-place trophy and left.

It did ruin my day more than I'd like to admit, but now that I've had time to think about it, I'm feeling ok (and happy to be the best of 34 competitors...biggest IPA group yet of any comp in this country). But I am still hoping to find out if they were telling the truth about this being a BJCP standard, as I've never heard of it and it seems weird to me. They didn't just single me out BTW. They didn't award any first, second, or third place in the Belgian category because they felt all of them were bad, for example. Still though, while 33/50 is a bit lower than I would have hoped for, it doesn't seem like all that shameful of a #1 score.

 

[dmtaylor]

There might be a minimum threshold in their own rules for the competition. They can develop their own rules, which have nothing to do with the BJCP. If he used the BJCP as his excuse, he lied.

 

[MaxStout]

Well, you're taking it pretty well. No sense in escalating things, and you didn't. They arbitrarily changed the rules and the deck was stacked against you from the beginning. But hey, you got a decent score, a runner-up ribbon, and you have a batch of NEIPA you can enjoy. It's all good.

Just curious...what comp was this, so I can avoid sending in beer.

 

[tyrub42]

There might be a minimum threshold in their own rules for the competition. They can develop their own rules, which have nothing to do with the BJCP. If he used the BJCP as his excuse, he lied.

According to him, it's because of 'BJCP standards', so I guess that answers that lol. He said it's the first year they're doing anything like this, because they want to be in line with the rules and standards of the BJCP (I think this is the first year that it's officially a BJCP event). Thanks for letting me know!

 

[tyrub42]

Well, you're taking it pretty well. No sense in escalating things, and you didn't. They arbitrarily changed the rules and the deck was stacked against you from the beginning. But hey, you got a decent score, a runner-up ribbon, and you have a batch of NEIPA you can enjoy. It's all good.

Just curious...what comp was this, so I can avoid sending in beer.

It's in Taiwan, so I'm sure you're safe haha. Thanks a lot for the kind words

 

[myndflyte]

Well congrats on the "win." I agree it's kind of a dick move on their part but I think you handled it as well as someone could. I think if they thought it wasn't in line with the guidelines, then they shouldn't have even scored it in that category or docked your score appropriately. Personally, I probably wouldn't submit to that comp again because it sounds like they could just be selective.

Like a friend of the organization submits a beer but another wins over it so they just say the winner didn't follow the guidelines exactly and award the winner to someone else. Seems a bit shady.

 

[tyrub42]

Well congrats on the "win." I agree it's kind of a dick move on their part but I think you handled it as well as someone could. I think if they thought it wasn't in line with the guidelines, then they shouldn't have even scored it in that category or docked your score appropriately. Personally, I probably wouldn't submit to that comp again because it sounds like they could just be selective.

Like a friend of the organization submits a beer but another wins over it so they just say the winner didn't follow the guidelines exactly and award the winner to someone else. Seems a bit shady.

Thanks a lot! Just to clarify, the beer was within their guidelines and did [I thought] reasonably well. They said it wasn't BJCP appropriate to give first place to a beer that scored 33/50. He mentioned something about a 35, but not in the way that it would have been a definite win either. More of like a vague '35 would have been better than 33' way. He didn't seem interested in justifying it past:

Him: It's BJCP rules/guidelines. Wouldn't be appropriate to give you first place with a 33
Me: I'm pretty sure it isn't; I've never heard of that in an American comp.
Him: we had international judges from Hong Kong and Singapore.
Me: oooookkkkk, but that doesn't really answer my question, and I don't think this is appropriate. You do understand why I think it's weird that I'm the best in a category, but somehow came in second, right?
(He started calling over other people to try to explain it again, stuff started to feel really awkward and uncomfortable, and I kind of just said thanks and left)

I even made sure to translate all of the Chinese to make sure I wasn't mistaking the situation for something else, but my trophy literally says Runner up/ Second place.

Also, they didn't select an alternate winner; there was no first place and I came in second to nobody haha.

Odd day, but really it's just a game, and it is nice to know that this is a problem with this one group and not something that the BJCP actually endorses. Unfortunately I believe it's the only homebrew comp in the country, so not much I can do to 'take my business elsewhere' so to speak haha.

 

[seilenos]

I can't say how common it is because I don't enter competitions but it is something I have seen in specific competition guidelines. It sounds like they were limiting winners to at least "great" beers (35-39, https://www.bjcp.org/cep/GreatBeerJudging.pdf).

From a quick Google search:

https://www.facebook.com/MotherEarthBrewery/posts/10152613197808365
"If no entry reaches BJCP guidelines scoring for a “good” beer, no winner will be chosen for that category. A minimum of “excellent” must be met to win Grand Prize."

https://www.homebrewersassociation....tion=profile;area=showposts;sa=topics;u=19972
"An entry must achieve a minimum rating of “good” (25 points on the BJCP score sheet) to qualify for an award. MUGZ does not have to award first, second or third place if beers are not of proper quality."

If they did not include those qualifiers in the competition guidelines, then I would say they were in the wrong. They can't use different rules than what they published. If this was the case (using rules they didn't publish) and it was a sanctioned event you could always contact your Regional BJCP Rep and discuss the matter with them.

 

[tyrub42]

I can't say how common it is because I don't enter competitions but it is something I have seen in specific competition guidelines. It sounds like they were limiting winners to at least "great" beers (35-39, https://www.bjcp.org/cep/GreatBeerJudging.pdf).

From a quick Google search:

https://www.facebook.com/MotherEarthBrewery/posts/10152613197808365
"If no entry reaches BJCP guidelines scoring for a “good” beer, no winner will be chosen for that category. A minimum of “excellent” must be met to win Grand Prize."

https://www.homebrewersassociation....tion=profile;area=showposts;sa=topics;u=19972
"An entry must achieve a minimum rating of “good” (25 points on the BJCP score sheet) to qualify for an award. MUGZ does not have to award first, second or third place if beers are not of proper quality."

If they did not include those qualifiers in the competition guidelines, then I would say they were in the wrong. They can't use different rules than what they published. If this was the case (using rules they didn't publish) and it was a sanctioned event you could always contact your Regional BJCP Rep and discuss the matter with them.

Interesting, thanks for that!

From that, it seems like they were definitely in the wrong as there were no grand prizes and they opted to have no first-place winner for my category. It's definitely weird, but I guess it's like when a building doesn't have a 13th floor. People on the '14th floor' know where they really are haha.

No mention of it in the comp guidelines, but I don't really feel like contacting the local BJCP and pushing this any further. Something tells me it wouldn't lead anywhere and I would somehow end up coming off like a jerk for asking about it haha. As of now, I guess the official verdict is that I won my category but with an asterisk.

Thanks again!

 

[tyrub42]

Quick update:

I believe the sequence of events for this competition was that the score I received to be in the top three was for the qualifying round, and the only official BJCP score given to the beer. The final round was a week later (yesterday), and consisted of another panel of BJCP judges from either Taiwan, HK, and/or Singapore who evaluated each beer and decided the final ranking. In my category, they decided that my beer was the only one worthy of an award, but deserved runner-up, so they gave me the runner-up trophy, and did not award either of the other finalists with a trophy.

This is not any less weird but I don't want to leave anything out (they also used my first-round scores to justify not giving me the first-place trophy, so maybe they took those into account also?).



Still actually happy that my written feedback was in English and very positive, and the only highish-ranking Judge gave me a 34 (he initially gave a 35, but took a point off of appearance for being 'little bit hazy'). I lost points on both for having slight fruity ester expression. While that was of course the whole point of the yeast I used (conan), and the light haze was both on purpose and actually within style guidelines, I expected the yeast to actually lower my score since it's not a classic 'clean American ale yeast'. Although BJCP guidelines do allow for that, I expect it would have been a bit of a shock to Asian judges, as even beers labeled as NEIPA here generally use US05 or something similar (getting yeast across the world is a tough business, so it makes sense). I would have actually expected the yeast to be a potential problem in the US as well TBH, and frankly, it is kind of a new(ish) idea in the American IPA world.

Anyway, just wanted to update on the actual process used. Thanks again to all of the above commenters. I hope there is a comp going on in the US around my next visit. It would be very cool to enter in other countries.

 

[Sheldon]

Interesting. I was listening to the award ceremony at GABF yesterday and one of the catergories only had bronze and silver medals awarded. There was no Gold medal for that particular style. So I guess if they can do it, there must be something to the point. I just naturally thought the highest point total would receive the gold.

 

[MaxStout]

Also, they didn't select an alternate winner; there was no first place and I came in second to nobody haha.

Since no first place prize was awarded, technically your beer placed best in category. It doesn't matter what the ribbon says, nobody beat your beer in that category. It doesn't matter if your score was 33 or 3. Still tops. And you can brag that to your friends when you pour one for them.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Setting minimums for placement/advancement isn't uncommon. NHC does it (must score at least 30 to advance to finals IIRC).

HOWEVER, that is a competition thing, NOT a BJCP thing. The BJCP has specific rules around how judging is done (blind, feedback has to be provided, guidelines published) for a comp to be sanctioned, but they do NOT set competition rules, especially not rules like that. Hell as long as guidelines are published, a comp doesn't even have to use BJCP styles.

So if your comp is claiming this is the standard, they're either misinformed or lying. My guess is misinformed. Of course if they want to limit a first place to 35+, they're welcome to, but that should probably be published in the rules, and they wouldn't be the only comp to do so.

My issue with scoring minimums is that different judges score the same beer differently. This is precisely why consensus scores are used, and especially why mini-BOS is done in large categories with multiple judge sets. Otherwise you'd just rank by scores regardless of who judged them. And you could do the same with BOS too for that matter. But you can't. And denying advancement/placement to a beer that scored 32 when another set of judges would have ranked the flight the same way relative to the other beers, but gave it a 37, is incredibly problematic to my mind.

 

[tyrub42]

Setting minimums for placement/advancement isn't uncommon. NHC does it (must score at least 30 to advance to finals IIRC).

HOWEVER, that is a competition thing, NOT a BJCP thing. The BJCP has specific rules around how judging is done (blind, feedback has to be provided, guidelines published) for a comp to be sanctioned, but they do NOT set competition rules, especially not rules like that. Hell as long as guidelines are published, a comp doesn't even have to use BJCP styles.

So if your comp is claiming this is the standard, they're either misinformed or lying. My guess is misinformed. Of course if they want to limit a first place to 35+, they're welcome to, but that should probably be published in the rules, and they wouldn't be the only comp to do so.

My issue with scoring minimums is that different judges score the same beer differently. This is precisely why consensus scores are used, and especially why mini-BOS is done in large categories with multiple judge sets. Otherwise you'd just rank by scores regardless of who judged them. And you could do the same with BOS too for that matter. But you can't. And denying advancement/placement to a beer that scored 32 when another set of judges would have ranked the flight the same way relative to the other beers, but gave it a 37, is incredibly problematic to my mind.

Yes, I totally agree it would be misinformed and nothing malicious. My guess would be that they were trying to look more prestigious as a BJCP competition, and accidentally ended up doing the opposite. This is also something that they do sometimes in national Taiwanese competitions apparently, so they likely thought that this is how the BJCP works as well and they could just kind of make up standards as they went along (or that they could use subjective standards, as I don't actually know if 35 was a minimum and they were extremely vague past the point of saying they felt it was appropriate...). I am trying to use the right nomenclature when I talk about it, which can be a bit annoying haha. I know I won my category, and I know I can't say that I got the championship trophy, but I don't know if I can say I got first in my category haha.

Anyway, thanks a lot!

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I would agree with others.

I wouldn't call this "common" practice, but it's not incredibly rare either. I've seen multiple competitions over the years where no beer "earned" a "First Place" score, and the top beer in that category was 2nd place. Whether you agree with that practice or not, it's not unheard of.

But I do believe that for the comp organizer to justify it as "this is the BJCP standard" is obviously wrong. Nothing I'm aware of in the BJCP says you should or should not do this. This is a local competition decision, not a BJCP standard.

 

[BudBernerBrewer]

Maybe it has to do with the "everyone's a winner" mentality. If no ones a winner all the losers can feel better about themselves jk

 

[tyrub42]

I would agree with others.

I wouldn't call this "common" practice, but it's not incredibly rare either. I've seen multiple competitions over the years where no beer "earned" a "First Place" score, and the top beer in that category was 2nd place. Whether you agree with that practice or not, it's not unheard of.

But I do believe that for the comp organizer to justify it as "this is the BJCP standard" is obviously wrong. Nothing I'm aware of in the BJCP says you should or should not do this. This is a local competition decision, not a BJCP standard.

Yes, from what the others have said it would have been totally acceptable to do as long as they posted clear score minimums in advance (they didn't, but they probably just got confused about it since there's likely a lot of translating and 'hearing about stuff from a guy' going on). I'm guessing they had good intentions...

 

[SleepyCreekBrews]

That same thing appears to have happened in a competition I entered recently. There were something like 8 entries in the IPA category and there was No First Place ribbon awarded for the category. I've won that category with a 41 before, so I assumed that the top score (this time) was something less than "Blue ribbon worthy"

(Full disclosure : I entered an Octoberfest this round, and was not involved in the IPA competition)

 

[Qhrumphf]

Another thing to keep in mind, sometimes comps will combine categories for placement but split them up displaying winners.

Example: An American Lager, International Pale Lager, and a German Pils all get judged together and win respective 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. But on the winners display each category under BJCP guidelines gets listed separately rather than how it was actually judged, and so it looks like one didn't award 2nd/3rd, one didn't award 1st/3rd, and one didn't award 1st or 2nd.

I've only seen a couple comps do this, but I've seen it happen.

Not the OP's issue as it seems the "score wasn't high enough" part was explicitly stated.

 

[tyrub42]

Another thing to keep in mind, sometimes comps will combine categories for placement but split them up displaying winners.

Example: An American Lager, International Pale Lager, and a German Pils all get judged together and win respective 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. But on the winners display each category under BJCP guidelines gets listed separately rather than how it was actually judged, and so it looks like one didn't award 2nd/3rd, one didn't award 1st/3rd, and one didn't award 1st or 2nd.

I've only seen a couple comps do this, but I've seen it happen.

Not the OP's issue as it seems the "score wasn't high enough" part was explicitly stated.

This comp did combine categories as well. Mine was 'All types of IPA' which was fairly reasonable (the finalists were two IPAs and a black IPA), but other categories were things like "American Ale" where finalists included a pale ale and an imperial stout, and stuff like that. There were 7 categories total, all with 30-50 entries. However, all of that was posted months in advance so we all knew what we were going to compete with, and winners were judged by their score within their respective subcategories. Seemed a little weird, but I think we all understood why they did it. Plus the categories all seemed to have similar numbers on entries that way, so I would give them a lot of credit for knowing how to sort the categories in a way that we all had a lot of competition.

 

[Qhrumphf]

This comp did combine categories as well. Mine was 'All types of IPA' which was fairly reasonable (the finalists were two IPAs and a black IPA), but other categories were things like "American Ale" where finalists included a pale ale and an imperial stout, and stuff like that. There were 7 categories total, all with 30-50 entries. However, all of that was posted months in advance so we all knew what we were going to compete with, and winners were judged by their score within their respective subcategories. Seemed a little weird, but I think we all understood why they did it. Plus the categories all seemed to have similar numbers on entries that way, so I would give them a lot of credit for knowing how to sort the categories in a way that we all had a lot of competition.

Combining and rearranging categories is very, very common in all but the largest competitions (and in those cases, sometimes they'll split them up). Most comps try to maintain things in a cohesive way (emphasis on try) so that things are judged fairly.

You're actually lucky that your comp published their groupings it ahead of time. Most do not, namely because they're often not decided until the last minute once actual entries are received based on actual numbers- so that you don't have 40 entries in one category and 3 in another.

I specifically am referring to splitting them up again in the prize description afterwards. One comp I can think of has done it a few times, leading people (myself included) to wonder why multiple categories had no 1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd place beers. Once I learned what'd happened it made sense and I know to look for it now. Although I suspect that was more a software issue than anything else, as they no longer do it that way.

 

[tyrub42]

Combining and rearranging categories is very, very common in all but the largest competitions (and in those cases, sometimes they'll split them up). Most comps try to maintain things in a cohesive way (emphasis on try) so that things are judged fairly.

You're actually lucky that your comp published their groupings it ahead of time. Most do not, namely because they're often not decided until the last minute once actual entries are received based on actual numbers- so that you don't have 40 entries in one category and 3 in another.

I specifically am referring to splitting them up again in the prize description afterwards. One comp I can think of has done it a few times, leading people (myself included) to wonder why multiple categories had no 1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd place beers. Once I learned what'd happened it made sense and I know to look for it now. Although I suspect that was more a software issue than anything else, as they no longer do it that way.

Wow that sounds super confusing. I was in one winner-take-all comp last year where it was just one massive combined category. I suppose in theory it makes sense since they are still judged according to BJCP standards of their style, but I have to think some styles tend to get higher overall scores than others (like how every Imperial stout is a 97 or higher on ratebeer haha).