Card rules · 2026-10-29
Why Fixing One Hand Error Can Reveal Another
A validation message can report the first failed check rather than every problem in a hand. Reading it as a complete verdict can create false confidence about conditions that were never…
A validation message can report the first failed check rather than every problem in a hand. Reading it as a complete verdict can create false confidence about conditions that were never reached.
Consider a staged checker
In a teaching workflow, the checker tests card count first, required sequences second and individual group validity third. A hand with the wrong count receives a count error. After that is corrected, the checker reports a missing required sequence.
The second message may describe an existing problem that the checker has only now reached. Correcting the card count does not automatically create the required sequences. Compare the submitted cards before deciding whether the later message concerns a new defect.
What silence can establish
If a report explicitly says that all conditions were checked and lists their outcomes, it provides more information than a single generic failure label. Without that assurance, an absent warning should not be interpreted as a pass.
Keep the submitted hand associated with each report. A later error may relate to an edited hand, so comparing messages without their inputs can be misleading. A useful review records the hand snapshot, the displayed error and the correction made before the next submission.
The goal is not to guess a hidden checking algorithm. It is to avoid claiming more than the report states. “The count check failed” is a narrower and better-supported conclusion than “Only the count was wrong”.
Fixing the count does not create a sequence
Imagine fourteen cards including three kings but no second sequence. Removing an unrelated card can correct the count to thirteen without supplying that missing sequence. A later sequence warning is consistent with the earlier count warning. Compare the two actual inventories: if no card capable of filling the sequence was added or reassigned, there is no basis for assuming the grouping problem disappeared.