Black doubled and White should normally take.

But the score is extremely inclined towards dropping. Blasier says at this score: "Drop when the opponent can think about doubling at 0-0." It is explicitly NOT necessary that the opponent actually can double (which he can't at 0-0), only thinking about doubling is already enough to drop.

I thought Black could think about doubling because he leads in the race and has overwhelmingly many hitting and double hitting chances. (No board yet but enough builders to make one.) Therefore I dropped according to Blasiers rule which was the biggest blunder of the day.

Does anyone know a better or more precise rule for this score than "drop when the opponent can think about doubling"?

Part of what makes backgammon so hard is there are very few precise rules that apply generally. Useful concepts are always a matter of degree.

For instance, in your position, sure it would occur to me that I could double for money but properly analyzed, it’s a pretty big no double for money and it’s not crazy gammonish so it should be a very big take even at the score. But if wasn’t so clear that it wasn’t a money double and it was more gammonish, then the concept would apply, but then that just seems like you’re analyzing a position correctly, so what did you need that concept for?

So I don’t know, some of this type of advice can be helpful as a way to start thinking about position but you shouldn’t generalize too much, every position must be analyzed on its own merits by evaluating the relevant concepts and weighing them against each other. Which is not easy but it’s a much more effective way to play backgammon rather than relying in aphorisms.

At this score (2a-7a), after villian doubles, the cube is dead, hence you can calculate exact take points.

From my own calculations (it does seem to work according to 3 examples i have in a folder for this specifical score)

TP(takepoint for leader, in %) = 21.76 + 0.562*Gammons(trailer, in %, printed by XG) + 2.34 * Backgammon(trailer, in %, XG values)

This specifical thread makes me more thinking that assymetrical information and preparation are critical, and that the actual litterature in backgammon is a joke.

I think many things should be learnt by rote memorization if the information were clearly presented and shared.