Card rules · 2026-10-29
Three Different Reasons a Set Can Fail
Use a set definition requiring at least three cards of one rank, with distinct suits. Three short examples show why the same invalid label can need different explanations.
Use a set definition requiring at least three cards of one rank, with distinct suits. Three short examples show why the same invalid label can need different explanations.
Too few cards
9♣ and 9♦ share a rank and have different suits. They still contain only two cards. The failed condition is the minimum count. Adding 9♥ makes a three-card set under this definition.
Enough cards, wrong rank
Now use 9♣, 9♦ and 8♥. There are three cards and three suits, but the eight does not share the nines' rank. Repeating the earlier too-few-cards explanation would be wrong: the count has already been corrected.
Same rank, repeated suit
In a two-pack exercise, use 9♣-A, 9♣-B and 9♥. The copies A and B are distinct physical cards. There are three cards of one rank, but only two suits, so this group fails the distinct-suit condition.
Give the reason that fits the submitted group
All three groups fail, yet they fail different checks. The first needs another card; the second needs the rank problem addressed; the third needs the repeated-suit problem addressed. These are local diagnoses, not a verdict on the entire hand.
After any change, test the current cards again. A warning copied from an earlier arrangement can remain grammatically correct while describing a group that no longer exists.