I've had a beer score 40 in one competition and 33 at another, judged within weeks of each other.
If that's as far as your variance goes, then you've got it good.
Judge variability is DEFINITELY a legit complaint, as is the lack of properly certified judges, especially at larger comps (don't get me started on my frustration with only getting sheets from low ranking judges at NHC). But that's one I don't have an answer to.
Two instances last year, I had a beer score a 38 in one comp and win me a bronze (scoring 36-40 in a few other comps), only to turn around a WEEK LATER from the same batch, and score me a 19 for an alleged infection. Could have been a bad bottle (would have been the only one of a 10 gallon batch), could have been bad judges, but from what I understand that comp had some issues with bottles getting swapped accidentally. No way to know. I wrote it off.
Then I had a beer score a 40, get me a gold, and then two weeks later at NHC first round, score a 19 for alleged fusels. That one didn't make the rounds in any other comps, but definitely no fusels in there.
I was livid from both, and mostly stopped entering at that point. A few points here or there, I can live with that. Some styles (Milds for example), I know not to expect a good result, because most judges haven't had an authentic example and the guidelines are easy to misinterpret without that context. Same thing, I can live with that. But ~20 point swings between the same batch and within 1-2 weeks of each other is a bit much.
So if that were the complaint the OP made, I'd be completely in agreement.
And then there's the idea, any comp you score well has great judges, any comp you don't has bad judges.
But ultimately, while I know I make consistently good beer (occasionally a new recipe won't turn out how I intended, but still procedurally sound), I'd never boast that I'm a world class brewer.