33/50 a decent beer score?

33 is in the "Very Good" category. 33 isn't usually high enough to win a flight, but the judges may just have been low scorers, since they obviously thought your beer was the best one on the table.

Outstanding (45 - 50): World-class example of style.
Excellent (38 - 44): Exemplifies style well, requires minor fine-tuning.
Very Good (30 - 37): Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws.
Good (21 - 29): Misses the mark on style and/or minor flaws.
Fair (14 - 20): Off flavors/aromas or major style deficiencies. Unpleasant.
Problematic (00 - 13): Major off flavors and aromas dominate. Hard to drink.

 

I enjoy entering beers in competitions and even do some judging . . . it can be enlightening. That said, don't get too caught up with the scores. I've medal'ed with beer that scored 31 and had a score of 42.5 be a wallflower.

Making beer you enjoy trumps all.

 

I have had beers that I thought were well suited to my tastes but judges thought were too understated and scored them in the low 30s. These include saisons, pale ales, and one smoked beer. None of them medaled. I've had scores in the high 30s that medaled, including one that was not very good by my estimation. I wanted feedback on improving what i felt was a flawed entry and instead got third place. I attribute this to inexperienced judges and a low number of entries. I doubt this would happen in NHC.

 

The score is more useful as a relative ranking tool within a flight than it is a quantitative measure of excellence. That's why we traditionally judge a calibration beer at the start of the day - it allows the judges in a panel to adjust their dials, so to speak. The fact that it won the flight is the important part. (of course, I'm making the assumption that yours wasn't simply the least crappy in an overall bad flight . It happens!)

That said, it's a pretty safe bet that, if you ever get a score, say, in the high 40's, it's probably a damn fine beer!

 

I'd settle for selling out for 55b

 

In my judging experience a commercial calibration beer usually scores in the low to mid 30's, so your beer is likely pretty good.

 

It really depends. Often times style guidelines come at a cost to the person competing. For instance if the judge is simply reading the required guidelines and has no direct experience with various types of Saisons you might simply receive low or high marks because of lack of knowledge.

I think lot's of protocols are flawed because in order to judge beer you should have experience tasting at least half a dozen varieties of the style. But most people make broad based generalizations. That can hurt...both the brewer and the overall review process.

I'll bet you made a fine drinkable beer. I took third place in the "other" category and my beer was full of chlorine compounds. Why I won...nobody else competed in that category Houston we have a problem...but I'm not complaining.

 

That's odd. There is no "other" BJCP category, but regardless of the category(s), I'd say the competition organizer screwed up if they failed to combine categories and ended up with a flight with only 3 beers in it. I think the handbook calls for a minimum of 6.

 

Fwiw I have had beers in the low 30's medal, and some in the low 40's not place. Last year had my imperial stout come in at 38 with judge commenting "I am not sure what else you could do to make this beer better, great job!"

 

While I'm not going to pretend that the judges' knowledge is flawless, what you're describing here is the exception (unless it's late in the day, but that's another topic). There's much study, tasting, and field research required to prepare for a pretty thorough PITA test that you need to pass before becoming a BJCP judge. It's not likely a BJCP judge who has been through that process has no experience with a Saison, for example. A judge who is simply reading the guidelines is likely an apprentice, in which case, he/she is supposed to be paired with a higher ranking judge, whose job it is to provide guidance. It's not a perfect system, but it works fairly well. Some would call it a crap shoot and, on some level, I would agree. But the same names keep bubbling to the top, suggesting there's more than a little validity to it.

 

To expand on this; in Florida there is a reoccurring annual "Brew Circuit" . . . seven competitions spread over the year and a running total is kept on each individual's score. The judges all move around, I've had some judges multiple times and occasionally a new judge pops up I've never seen before. I had the good fortune to judge in two of the comps this year. But the winner's (and 2nd and 3rd) names are pretty consistent from year to year to year. It's possible for a new brewer to crack the rankings, but it requires some seriously good beer.

For the OP: when you get the scoresheet it will list the judge's name and rank. They may be an "Apprentice" or a "Grand Master" or "nada". In most cases at least one will be ranked "Recognized" or higher. The higher rank doesn't always mean their comments are more accurate, but smart money would lean that way. You may see a "non-ranked" judge and that doesn't mean their comments are off base. It could be an industry professional, a dedicated homebrewer, or maybe someone who is really smart that just hasn't taken the BJCP test yet . . . or possibly some numb-nuts.

If you get the opportunity, volunteer to judge (or at least steward). Being exposed to the judging process gave me tremendous insight into the process and overall made me a better brewer.