Like some of the other posters, this is not how I understand it to work. It is Boomer's action obviously (since he is bidding), therefore his defensive edge doesn't matter, only Boomer's offensive edge versus his opponent's defensive edge.
This is because if Boomer loses AP here it is not generally because of the opponent trying to damage him directly, but rather it is a matter of position, initiative, etc. For example, for a fumble verus critical, it would be something like: Boomer swings his enchanted axe, and his opponent nimbly steps out of the way and trips Boomer, and as Boomer falls he lodges his axe deep in the dirt, giving the opponent a hunk of advantage.
Now, the question is, when it is your action and you lose the contest, do you still add your offensive edge and subtract your opponents defensive edge?
If this is the case, what you talked about can still occur, but happens when your offensive edge is much greater than your opponent's defensive edge. For example, Boomer is using an enchanted great axe with a net edge of ^7, against an unarmored opponent. This would imply that as long as Boomer bids moderately he would never lose AP on his actions (his opponent gives the axe so much respect that he never takes advantage of Boomer's lapses). If you are comfortable with that, play with it.
Another solution would be of course that when you lose on your action no edges apply. (nobody is cutting anyone up, it is all about position etc).
The third option is to adjucate depending on what each involved character states that they are doing i.e. if the opponent countered with his sword skill stating a stop thrust, if the opponent wins use his offensive versus boomer's defensive. If he states that he tries to get the axe caught in his shield and twist it away, maybe you do use Boomer's offensive versus the opponent's defensive. If the opponent is attempting to simply dodge out of the way of the psychopathic dwarf, maybe no edges apply at all. This has the advantage of avoiding stupids rules tricks and weird corners where the rules don't make sense with reality, but it requires the narrator to make a lot more decisions and for the players to have a lot of trust in the narrator (i.e. not for use by adversarial gaming groups! (I have nothing against adversarial style gaming, it is what I grew up with, but it usually requires more detailed rules or a narrator with a very strong personality unless you want things to move very slowly)).
All just my opinion on it.
--Bryan
Powered by hypermail