[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

... and use of the inverse phrasing

Posted By: Stein Kulseth
Date: Thursday, 13 March 2008, at 10:50 a.m.

In Response To: Woolsey's law and formal logic (Stein Kulseth)

The inverse phrasing can be of help in doubling/taking situations though. Going back to Woolsey's original wording:

  • If you aren't ABSOLUTELY sure whether the position is a take or a pass, then it is ALWAYS correct to double.

    • Alternative phrasing, noting that merely being unsure of whether it is correct to double can be seen as a negation of "it is ALWAYS correct":

  • If you are not sure whether it is correct to double, then you can be sure about the take or the drop

    • Which makes some sense, if you think that the position might be a no double for being not good enough, you can be fairly certain about the take. Similarily, if you think that it might possibly be a no double for being too good, then dropping seems to be a good idea.

    What you don't get in this situation though is the extra bonus that if you were wrong in your initial assessment, you may gain double by your opponent making the same error.

    In original Woolsey, if the take/drop is not in fact that close, and it technically is a no double - in either direction - then your error is probably small to begin with, but if your opponent also errs, your payoff is huge!

    Here, using the inverse for deciding on take/drop, your opponent has already made his play, and your taking/dropping will not affect the soundness of the cube. Of course, any error is still likely to be small.

    Messages In This Thread

     

    Post Response
    Your Name:
    Your E-Mail Address:
    Subject:
    Message:

    If necessary, enter your password below:

    Password:
     

     

    [ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

    BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.