BJCP Exam Practice Methods

[TheMadKing]

So I have passed the online exam and my tasting exam is in May.

Right now I'm having my wife buy beer and serve it to me blind. Then she tells me to judge it to a style that's at least moderately similar (or maybe the correct style,but I don't know until it's over).

I fill out a score sheet for each beer and describe the attributes and then at the end I guess on what style I think it really is.

So question for you judges out there, what study methods do you suggest that were effective for you? I'd like to hear how y'all prepared.

 

[Qhrumphf]

A few things:

1. Flaw training. The BJCP study guide has instructions for self-doctoring. Siebel and Aroxa sell kits for doctoring as well (I've worked with both and both are good, but there are others out there too). They are more expensive and need lead time (you may not have enough), but will cover attributes that are harder to self doctor.


2. Get used to writing your sheets fast. In the exam you have 15 mins per sheet. In the real world it's more like 10 mins. So practice writing a *master* level sheet in 10 mins.

3. Don't bother with guessing a style. The beer you're guessing may represent nothing and you won't be tested like that. You'll be told the style. Evaluate against what you're told, that's it. Many commercial examples don't represent styles any many styles have hard to find accurate examples. Practice evaluation is good. Blind is also good. But evaluate it against the guidelines. Seek out the listed examples to calibrate (while also realizing even then few are perfect examples).

4. Focus on writing good sheets.

-Discuss *everything*. If the sheet mentions it, say. "No other aromatics". "No creaminess". The only catch, the sheet doesn't mention hop flavor AND bitterness, but you need to mention BOTH on all sheets "no hop flavor, moderate bitterness". In sets I grade that can sometimes be a deciding factor for a borderline Certified/National tasting exam. Bottom style/flaw/intangible range boxes checked every time. Any descriptor boxes checked, and not only if flaws. Officially lower than "low" perception doesn't need it, but if you list it, check it.

-have your wife work with you. Back to back. Describe the beer verbally. Have her write a scoresheet without tasting or seeing the beer, only based on your description. Better if done with another prospective judge, who can ask questions. When you're done, trade places and do it with a different beer. You want to be able to fully and accurately experience the beer through that written description. If not, you're not descriptive enough. It'll help you learn the level of description needed. And it's a technique used to train exam proctors that you'll be evaluated against when taking the exam.

-feedback is tough and where almost everyone struggles. I want to see your style and technical knowledge shine. Want you to connect dots. But don't make assumptions. Justify why you scored what you did, and give the brewer instructions to make it better. The challenge is to give feedback that is both actionable (a specific correction), but doesn't assume anything, and is both stylistically and technically accurate. If there are stylistic or technical faults, provide feedback for *every* *single* *one*.

On a master level sheet, writing small, you should be FILLING appearance and mouthfeel, and often into the margins on aroma, flavor and overall impression.

 

[TheMadKing]

A few things:

1. Flaw training. The BJCP study guide has instructions for self-doctoring. Siebel and Aroxa sell kits for doctoring as well (I've worked with both and both are good, but there are others out there too). They are more expensive and need lead time (you may not have enough), but will cover attributes that are harder to self doctor.


2. Get used to writing your sheets fast. In the exam you have 15 mins per sheet. In the real world it's more like 10 mins. So practice writing a *master* level sheet in 10 mins.

3. Don't bother with guessing a style. The beer you're guessing may represent nothing and you won't be tested like that. You'll be told the style. Evaluate against what you're told, that's it. Many commercial examples don't represent styles any many styles have hard to find accurate examples. Practice evaluation is good. Blind is also good. But evaluate it against the guidelines. Seek out the listed examples to calibrate (while also realizing even then few are perfect examples).

4. Focus on writing good sheets.

-Discuss *everything*. If the sheet mentions it, say. "No other aromatics". "No creaminess". The only catch, the sheet doesn't mention hop flavor AND bitterness, but you need to mention BOTH on all sheets "no hop flavor, moderate bitterness". In sets I grade that can sometimes be a deciding factor for a borderline Certified/National tasting exam. Bottom style/flaw/intangible range boxes checked every time. Any descriptor boxes checked, and not only if flaws. Officially lower than "low" perception doesn't need it, but if you list it, check it.

-have your wife work with you. Back to back. Describe the beer verbally. Have her write a scoresheet without tasting or seeing the beer, only based on your description. Better if done with another prospective judge, who can ask questions. When you're done, trade places and do it with a different beer. You want to be able to fully and accurately experience the beer through that written description. If not, you're not descriptive enough. It'll help you learn the level of description needed. And it's a technique used to train exam proctors that you'll be evaluated against when taking the exam.

-feedback is tough and where almost everyone struggles. I want to see your style and technical knowledge shine. Want you to connect dots. But don't make assumptions. Justify why you scored what you did, and give the brewer instructions to make it better. The challenge is to give feedback that is both actionable (a specific correction), but doesn't assume anything, and is both stylistically and technically accurate. If there are stylistic or technical faults, provide feedback for *every* *single* *one*.

On a master level sheet, writing small, you should be FILLING appearance and mouthfeel, and often into the margins on aroma, flavor and overall impression.

Thanks! That's great feedback

I have used a siebal kit with 25 flavors and that was very valuable.

Guessing the styles was more of a"BS" check to make sure the things I'm saying are accurate... For example, tonight I judged a Dunkelweiss as an American Amber and marked it down to 25/50 for all the yeast character and the wheat flavor. So by guessing the style, I was able to ensure I'm not making stuff up entirely.

On the score sheets I filled out, I do find myself always writing in the margins to adequately describe the beer according to the guidelines, but I definitely have a few things lacking.

Based on what you've said, I have a few specific things to work on with my score sheets. I also have a national and a Grand Master judge in my club that have been helping, but I wanted to get other perspectives.

Thanks for giving me the master sheet criteria. I like to be the best at everything I do, so I always prefer to work to the highest standard.

I owe you a beer sir!

 

[Qhrumphf]

One additional item on description:

Evocative language and intensity descriptors. Don't use ranges. "Medium to high" is bad. Is it medium, high, or medium high? For accuracy considerations i assume you mean the medium high, but won't give you credit for the range. "Low to none" is the worst. It's either there or it isn't. Trust your palate. And be specific. "Medium-high passionfruit hop aroma" is better than "lots of tropical hop aroma" is better than "hoppy aroma" or "medium to high hop aroma". Lots of people skip the intensity descriptors. WHAT do you taste/smell, and HOW MUCH?

And one more note on feedback: fight the urge to suggest an alternate style unless you're damned sure it fits the alternate style. It's a common tactic and mostly backfires. If you say to enter a Porter as a Mild, but you aren't describing a damned good Mild, you're gonna get nailed, especially if that's your only feedback. You'll do better telling them how to make it fit the style it's listed as. Or if you're confident in the alternate style (or can equivocate a character that wouldn't fit the new style) then do both.

 

[TheMadKing]

One additional item on description:

Evocative language and intensity descriptors. Don't use ranges. "Medium to high" is bad. Is it medium, high, or medium high? For accuracy considerations i assume you mean the medium high, but won't give you credit for the range. "Low to none" is the worst. It's either there or it isn't. Trust your palate. And be specific. "Medium-high passionfruit hop aroma" is better than "lots of tropical hop aroma" is better than "hoppy aroma" or "medium to high hop aroma". Lots of people skip the intensity descriptors. WHAT do you taste/smell, and HOW MUCH?

And one more note on feedback: fight the urge to suggest an alternate style unless you're damned sure it fits the alternate style. It's a common tactic and mostly backfires. If you say to enter a Porter as a Mild, but you aren't describing a damned good Mild, you're gonna get nailed, especially if that's your only feedback. You'll do better telling them how to make it fit the style it's listed as. Or if you're confident in the alternate style (or can equivocate a character that wouldn't fit the new style) then do both.

What about using an alternate style as a descriptor?

So if I'm drinking a porter and say something like this in overall impression:

"The drinkability is very high but that's partially due to a thin mouthfeel and light body. While it is a delicious beer it drinks more like an Mild than a porter. Consider increasing OG or adding more protein such as flaked barley to increase the body"

 

[Qhrumphf]

What about using an alternate style as a descriptor?

So if I'm drinking a porter and say something like this in overall impression:

"The drinkability is very high but that's partially due to a thin mouthfeel and light body. While it is a delicious beer it drinks more like an Mild than a porter. Consider increasing OG or adding more protein such as flaked barley to increase the body"

Unless all the other characters match a Mild I wouldn't bring it up (or if everything else matches but it's, say, slightly overhopped for a Mild, then adding that). But it can easily go wrong for you, and best not to do it.

 

[TheMadKing]

Unless all the other characters match a Mild I wouldn't bring it up (or if everything else matches but it's, say, slightly overhopped for a Mild, then adding that). But it can easily go wrong for you, and best not to do it.

Thanks!