This might apply to doubled contracts typically, however right here is an instance of what I imply.
On the prime two tables on a selected board, the 2 pairs (mine and one other) made the identical variety of tips in the identical denomination, particularly ten tips in hearts. However right here the similarity ends.
With each, E-W and N-S weak on this board, we bid three hearts doubled, and made an overtrick, for a rating of 930. The outcome on the different desk was 4 hearts doubled, made on the nostril, for 790.
If each contracts had been undoubled, the opposite pair would have acquired a sport bonus and outscored us, as a result of we’d not have made sport. However it appears that evidently the vagaries of doubling precipitated us to outscore the opposite pair when each contracts had been doubled.
Particularly, the opposite pair acquired a 500 level sport bonus, 120 factors for 4 of a significant, double that to 240, and add a 50 level penalty. That will get me to 790.
We might have gotten a 500 level sport bonus, 90 factors for 3 of a significant, double that to 180 and add a 50 level penalty. That will get me to 730. I am assuming that the distinction between that and 930 should be attributable to 200 factors for the overtrick.
What led to this paradoxical outcome? Particularly, is there a cause why our “tenth” trick scored extra as an overtrick than the opposite pair’s tenth trick scored as a contribution to sport? We obtained a prime that I take into account “unearned.”
This might apply to doubled contracts typically, however right here is an instance of what I imply.
On the prime two tables on a selected board, the 2 pairs (mine and one other) made the identical variety of tips in the identical denomination, particularly ten tips in hearts. However right here the similarity ends.
With each, E-W and N-S weak on this board, we bid three hearts doubled, and made an overtrick, for a rating of 930. The outcome on the different desk was 4 hearts doubled, made on the nostril, for 790.
If each contracts had been undoubled, the opposite pair would have acquired a sport bonus and outscored us, as a result of we’d not have made sport. However it appears that evidently the vagaries of doubling precipitated us to outscore the opposite pair when each contracts had been doubled.
Particularly, the opposite pair acquired a 500 level sport bonus, 120 factors for 4 of a significant, double that to 240, and add a 50 level penalty. That will get me to 790.
We might have gotten a 500 level sport bonus, 90 factors for 3 of a significant, double that to 180 and add a 50 level penalty. That will get me to 730. I am assuming that the distinction between that and 930 should be attributable to 200 factors for the overtrick.
What led to this paradoxical outcome? Particularly, is there a cause why our “tenth” trick scored extra as an overtrick than the opposite pair’s tenth trick scored as a contribution to sport? We obtained a prime that I take into account “unearned.”