Why did we get a higher score for making a lower (doubled) contract?

Question

This could apply to doubled contracts generally, but here is an example of what I mean.

At the top two tables on a particular board, the two pairs (mine and another) made the same number of tricks in the same denomination, specifically ten tricks in hearts. But here the similarity ends.

With both, E-W and N-S vulnerable on this board, we bid three hearts doubled, and made an overtrick, for a score of 930. The result at the other table was four hearts doubled, made on the nose, for 790.

If both contracts had been undoubled, the other pair would have received a game bonus and outscored us, because we would not have made game. But it seems that the vagaries of doubling caused us to outscore the other pair when both contracts were doubled.

Specifically, the other pair received a 500 point game bonus, 120 points for four of a major, double that to 240, and add a 50 point penalty. That gets me to 790.

We would have gotten a 500 point game bonus, 90 points for three of a major, double that to 180 and add a 50 point penalty. That gets me to 730. I'm assuming that the difference between that and 930 must be attributable to 200 points for the overtrick.

What brought about this paradoxical result? Specifically, is there a reason why our "tenth" trick scored more as an overtrick than the other pair's tenth trick scored as a contribution to game? We got a top that I consider "unearned."

Answer 1

Why shouldn’t it work that way? Your opponents thought they could set 3H. You not only made but made an overtrick! Overtricks are huge points in doubled contracts for good reason - they’re an indication defenders bid very poorly indeed. Your top was more about your opponents getting a well deserved bottom, but sometimes that’s how it goes in bridge.

In a doubled contract vulnerable, overtricks are indeed 200 points as you surmise. See for example Larry Cohen’s explanation of doubled scoring.