Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Go ahead and discuss all the intricacies of the plot here.

This was good, the way in included all four of Christie's known characters Poirot, Ariadne Oliver, Superintendent Battle and Colonel Race. The four of them with four suspects to choose from. We are continually fed red herrings, so the chances of us hitting the right one are slim. Then when we are almost at the finish, and have decided that it must be the one, it changes yet again. A very clever story.

I agree with Christie or at least Poirot that this is one of the best Christie mysteries and in a quiet way the most audacious because a blatant clue is given quite early. I refer to the fact that a grand slam was bid and made during which no one could possibly be paying attention to the dummy.

Unfortunately, today few people will recognise the significance because Bridge has lost its popularity.

I must admit I don't know Bridge so a lot of this book is lost on me, Bicky. But I love it anyway. Both Dr Roberts and Anne Meredith are very satisfying murderers and I also enjoy the fact that not only do Colonel Despard and Rhoda get a happy ending, they show up in The Pale Horse too.

I think this was one of the very first Christies I read, when I was slightly too young to follow it. I remember being baffled by what a Garden City was in the first scene.

Annabel wrote: "I must admit I don't know Bridge so a lot of this book is lost on me, Bicky. But I love it anyway. Both Dr Roberts and Anne Meredith are very satisfying murderers and I also enjoy the fact that not..."

Well, there you have an advantage over me. I don't remember The Pale Horse at all and even now I am guessing about Garden City.

But yes, the end was satisfactory and Poirot's insights about psychological types was quite believable.

Bicky, as to the "blatant clue" there is a second way of looking at it.
No one would leave the table during a grand slam. All 4 players have a stake in the outcome and for a dummy to prefer wandering about the room instead of being at the game and (silently) rooting for his partner, would raise eyebrows.

I love this one, it's one of my favourites. Some great characters and a very ingenious plot. I was particularly pleased to see Superintendant Battle again, I am very fond of him.

Starfish wrote: "Bicky, as to the "blatant clue" there is a second way of looking at it.
No one would leave the table during a grand slam. All 4 players have a stake in the outcome and for a dummy to prefer wanderi..."

Point is you could be gone for what the other players would think is a very short while to freshen your drink etc. but no one would pay any attention to your wanderings. Remember he is a killer who is a master of taking advantage of an opportunity. Otherwise, the vital question is as to how the murderer could be sure that nobody would notice the act of murder or that the risk has been minimized. That while he/she is away nobody would look away from their cards because of a moment of boredom.

During which other hand could the murder have occurred? You have to admit that there is something special about a grand slam and that too doubled (for the uninitiated, it means that the declarer and his partner - the dummy -have undertaken to win all the thirteen tricks and the opponents have raised the stakes by doubling them, In essence the opponents are stating that they will win at least one trick. The crucial point is that the dummy has no role while the hand is being played out and that every hand of bridge has a dummy).

I'm so glad I read this one. I can't believe it's not better known - it was terrific! Very cleverly plotted. In that final few chapters, I felt that every 'reveal' of the murderer was quite convincing, until it was proved wrong!

I know nothing about Bridge, so didn't understand some of the explanations about the bidding. As you say Bicky, it's less popular now, whereas at the time I suppose most of her readers would have known the game.

By the way, garden cities were part of the rebuilding programme after WW2. They created entire new cities and towns from scratch, out in the country. I think the idea was older than that, but I always associate it with the 50s/60s in England.

Bicky, great explanation. I can see why no one noticed the dummy missing, even though, he too was responsible for the contract.
The specter of making 13 tricks (doubled!!), be it major, minor or no-trump, is formidable and there is no room for error. I get heart palpitations just thinking about it. :)

What do you guys think about the repeated 'Despard' s a white man' business in chapter 19. Colonel Race keeps repeating this. Is it supposed to convey innocence or does he mean it discriminatory like 'proper English man with uncolored skin so naturally all above board', if so why mention it so often in the span of 3 pages?

Jessica wrote: "What do you guys think about the repeated 'Despard' s a white man' business in chapter 19. Colonel Race keeps repeating this. Is it supposed to convey innocence or does he mean it discriminatory li..."

It means he is decent and honourable, an upright man. There is a similar expression in America "that's mighty white of you."

Interesting! Thank you Louise

Well, this was something else! I really like reading all these Poirots in order. I think it brings a whole new level of appreciation, I love how the narrator changed and the overall vibes of this case is so different from the last book. Also, indoors in England playing bridge vs sand roads and archaeological digs in Mesopotamia.

But we do still get a style of Egypt and the Orient, in trinkets and as travel destination but also in the flamboyant persona of our host or victim, mr Shaitana.

What do you think his motive for organising this party was? A game of studying the interactions between murderers and sleuths? Showing off to Poirot? He clearly was enjoying his party sat alsone in his chair observing his collection of criminals.
I do not really get why he wasn't playing bridge, why he divided the groups into different rooms and mostly, why he sat himself in the room with the 4 suspects. Hubris?

Shaitana enjoyed the game he invented for his private amusement. A chance meeting with Poirot gave him the idea. During a casual conversation at the exhibition of snuff boxes, a charity event, Shaitana told Poirot of his collections and said, he may even have something in Poirot's line. Not artifacts, but actual criminals, and since he only collects the best, his criminals are only those who got away with it.
At this point, Shaitana tuned Poirot out and mentally organized his dinner/bridge party with "his little exhibits" and 4 law and order experts.
Shaitana was very pleased with his idea. Poirot warned him that his hobby might be a dangerous one. (Of course, wild horses couldn't have kept P. away from this venture!)

Egypt, going on digs and bringing back souvenirs was very much in vogue and native people were considered to be exotic and different (aka dangerous).

Bicky - thank you for the explanation of the grand slam. I haven't a clue about bridge, but reading this book does make me want to learn more.

I was pretty sure that Anne Meredith was the murderer, and even gave myself a pat on the back at one point - but there was yet another twist! Very enjoyable, I am quite fond of Ms Oliver, she's quite an entertaining character.

I also really enjoyed the ending-the ongoing changing of the murderer is rather a Christie trick, and it gets me almost every time. I kept trying to figure out how it could be someone else other than the 4 suspects, as Christie is known for bringing in an "impossible" murderer-at one point I thought it might be Colonel Race (maybe he killed him just before leaving for his own game?) because there were several occasions where Poirot, Battle and Mrs Oliver met without him to discuss the case, but that was me trying (and failing, as always) to solve the mystery in a suitably Christie-ish way.

I didn't realize Rhoda and Despard show up again in The Pale Horse-I guess it will need another read at some point!

I think this is one of my favourite Poirot's. I have never played bridge and have no idea of how to do so, but Christie is brilliant at both making the game central and giving you the basic ideas, without being boring about it!

Christie did a better job at interesting me in bridge than Sayers did with cricket in (maybe) Murder Must Advertise.

Did anyone think Colonel Race was included only to make a fourth for bridge? Christie did not seem interested in him and sent him off quite soon.

I was of the opinion that Ariadne Oliver was included for a fourth at bridge, and her somewhat silliness.

Sue wrote: "I'm so glad I read this one. I can't believe it's not better known - it was terrific! Very cleverly plotted. In that final few chapters, I felt that every 'reveal' of the murderer was quite convinc..."

I felt the same - I know I read this decades ago and enjoyed it, and I know I’ve read Superintendent Battle before, but don’t really remember- it was a treat to reacquaint myself! I also enjoyed Ariadne Oliver, having reread Hallowe'en Party a couple years ago for an autumn book challenge, I like her with Poirot, they are fun together!

Sandy wrote: "Did anyone think Colonel Race was included only to make a fourth for bridge? Christie did not seem interested in him and sent him off quite soon."

Yes, or to provide the international clues gathered from his sources abroad.

I hadn't realized that Colonel Race is a recurring character-I found this out by looking at the AC Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ page which lists all her "series" characters and includes him, Ariadne Oliver, Superintendent Battle, Parker Pyne and Harley Quinn as well as Poirot, Marple and Tommy and Tuppence. I've got a lot of catch up reading to do!

Come on, answer me this. Why did Shaitana (coincidentally or not SHAITAN is the the name of the devil) put the 4 murderers together. Makes no sense.

I don't know about you, but as a self caricature Ariadne Oliver is over the top. Not one of Christie's best characters. Definitely worse than Hastings.

Frances wrote: "I hadn't realized that Colonel Race is a recurring character-I found this out by looking at the AC Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ page which lists all her "series" characters and includes him, Ariadne Oliver, Superinte..."

Thanks, I didn’t realize either! I look forward to listening to more Christie audiobooks, hopefully narrated by Hastings! (Great fun while I’m knitting).

Bicky wrote: "Come on, answer me this. Why did Shaitana (coincidentally or not SHAITAN is the the name of the devil) put the 4 murderers together. Makes no sense."

I thinks he liked to live dangerously and thought he could control the situation - clearly not!

Susan in NC wrote: "Bicky wrote: "Come on, answer me this. Why did Shaitana (coincidentally or not SHAITAN is the the name of the devil) put the 4 murderers together. Makes no sense."

I thinks he liked to live danger..."

Why not mix the detectives and the killers. And then to bring 4 murderers together to play a game of cards! Incidentally, this is one of my favourite Poirots.

Bicky wrote: "I don't know about you, but as a self caricature Ariadne Oliver is over the top. Not one of Christie's best characters. Definitely worse than Hastings."

I agree, she is a very silly woman.

Bicky wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Bicky wrote: "Come on, answer me this. Why did Shaitana (coincidentally or not SHAITAN is the the name of the devil) put the 4 murderers together. Makes no sense."

I thinks he ..."

At the very least place yourself in a chair in the room with the detectives during the game

Did you accept the use of the fictional Window Cleaner to get a confession? At first I was very annoyed that no window cleaner ever was mentioned... how unfair, how can we solve these puzzles with secrets being kept from us... good thing it wasn't a real one! (Of course I was also betting on the wrong suspect till almost the very end)

Louise wrote: "Bicky wrote: "I don't know about you, but as a self caricature Ariadne Oliver is over the top. Not one of Christie's best characters."

Haha, I enjoy Mrs Oliver as her silliness is offset by her self-consciousness. For example, did Christie come to regret Poirot's little foibles through all those books in the way that Mrs Oliver regretted making her detective Finnish?

But yes, I'm glad Christie kept her as a recurring character but didn't over-use her or I might well have tired of her.

Jessica wrote: "Did you accept the use of the fictional Window Cleaner to get a confession? "

Poirot's quite a fan of this kind of use of actors to secure a confession, I think. Yes, I can find it a bit 'neat' in the way bold murderers suddenly fall to pieces at the end, but it's hard when there's no evidence and Poirot just *knows*!

I thought the end to this was was exciting - with more than one murder at bay - which we should have expected given the premise, but I didn't all the same.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Louise wrote: "Bicky wrote: "I don't know about you, but as a self caricature Ariadne Oliver is over the top. Not one of Christie's best characters."

Haha, I enjoy Mrs Oliver as her silliness is o..."

I really enjoy Ariadne Oliver as an amusing caricature of Christie by Christie and agree she should not be over-used.

I find Mrs Oliver annoying in the later books, when her strictures on 'the youth', particularly in Third Girl, seem to echo her creator's inability to come to terms with modern life. But I love her spirit, good humour and ability to do what we're now encouraged to call 'bringing your whole self to work' in the earlier books. She never seems self-conscious about herself.

I also like Mrs Oliver's creativity and one of my favourite quotes from Agatha Christie is when she has to think of excuses for a young man to ring a girl he's only met once in The Pale Horse and she comes up with six excellent ones. When he marvels at this, she says wistfully: "Oh, one can always think of things. The trouble is, I always tend to think of too many and have to give up some, and that is rather agony."

I think that quote could explain a lot of things about some of AC's novels which become overstuffed with subplots and red herrings...

Very well put, Annabel. I'll have a look at The Pale Horse.

Annabel wrote: "I find Mrs Oliver annoying in the later books, when her strictures on 'the youth', particularly in Third Girl, seem to echo her creator's inability to come to terms with modern life. But I love her..."

Excellent explanation for some of Christie's books. Thanks Annabel.

Cards on the Table by Agatha Christie

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


This is one of the most fascinating plot settings Agatha Christie ever devised in my opinion. Mr Shaitana, in the self imposed role of Mephistopheles and poseur extraodinaire, invites four famous sleuths to a card party to meet his most prized collection of exhibits. M. Poirot, Mrs Oliver, Colonel Race and Superintendent Battle find that they have been summoned to meet a cast of murderers, who Mr Shaitana claims have managed to get away with the crimes, unsuspected. After dinner the four connoisseurs of crime are conducted to a card table to play bridge in one room, while in the other, four suspected criminals play together and Mr Shaitana looks on in diabolical amusement at the piquant situation he has created. The upshot of the evening is easy to predict.

I really enjoyed the interactions between the sleuths in solving this murder mystery. It was entertaining to read the different approaches contrasted with each other as the four investigators worked separately and together to amass the clues relevant to the case, not only to solve the present crime, but also to reveal the four separate crimes committed previously by the four accused suspects. I love Mrs Ariadne Oliver's character in particular, finding it particularly amusing as I know from reading Agatha Christie's autobiography Come, Tell Me How You Live, that this female sleuth was based in character and personality largely on herself. In particular, it was funny to read Mrs Oliver's critisims of her own books, plots and characters that she references regularly and (I suspect) were a reference to a number of real life humourous opinions held by Christie herself. I wonder if the following is a reference to an actual event that occurred in her life? Christie confesses that she also is partial to apples:


"Mrs Oliver extricated herself from the driving-seat of her little two-seater with some difficulty. To begin with, the makers of modern motor-cars assume that only a pair of sylph-like knees will ever be under the steering wheel. It is also the fashion to sit low. That being so, for a middle-aged woman of generous proportions it requires a good deal of superhuman wriggling to get out from under the steering wheel. In the second place, the seat next to the driving-seat was encumbered by several maps, a handbag, three novels and a large bag of apples. Mrs Oliver was partial to apples and had indeed been known to eat as many as five pounds straight off whilst composing the complicated plot of 'The Death in the Drain Pipe' - coming to herself with a start and an incipient stomach-ache an hour and ten minutes after she was due at an important luncheon party given in her honour."


As usual, it is the brilliant Hercule Poirot who summarises convincingly the neat opinion that any of the suspects could indeed have committed the murder, all having motive, opportunity and the ability to do it. A twisted and convoluted plot leads even the most confident reader to doubt again and agin their personal pick for 'who dunnit?', right until the end. It is a rare roller coaster of a ride, summed up a touch too tediously at the conclusion, by one of Poirot's familiar, longwinded lectures on the who how and why. The restriction of possible suspects to only four, leads to a greater development of character, history and interest for each of those suspects. With the ingeniousness of the plot and the inherent humour demonstrated throughout, this is definitely one of the most memorable of Agatha Christie's murder mysteries and also one of my absolute favourites.



View all my reviews

Frances wrote: "I also really enjoyed the ending-the ongoing changing of the murderer is rather a Christie trick, and it gets me almost every time. I kept trying to figure out how it could be someone else other th..."

I didn't know that either. The things you learn in this group! Thanks!

Jemima wrote: "

Cards on the Table by Agatha Christie
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
This is one of the most fascinating plot settings Agatha Christie ever devised in my opinion. Mr Shaitana, in the self imposed role..."

Great points all round - I enjoyed the interactions between sleuths, also, but didn’t know that about Ariadne Oliver - thank you! I really must read “Come, Tell me how you Live�. Christie is one of my favorite authors.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, particularly the Ariadne Oliver character with her tumbling apples. There are aspects of silliness about her, but also quite a lot of intelligence and wit, which prevents her from falling too deeply into caricature. I thought it was so interesting that Poirot used seemingly benign questions about bridge plays and the furnishings in the room to get an unguarded sense of people's personality, psychology, and state of mind that night. Of course it takes a man of his genius to glean the true essence of what their responses mean, but that is part of the fun of the story.
I wonder if Mr. Shaitana's purpose in sitting alone in the room with the killers was an attempt to overhear incriminating evidence? Clearly he wanted to rattle them by inviting four super sleuths to the party, and then making veiled comments during dinner that presumably only the killer would understand. He obviously underestimated their desperation and cunning.

Tara wrote: "I thoroughly enjoyed this book, particularly the Ariadne Oliver character with her tumbling apples. There are aspects of silliness about her, but also quite a lot of intelligence and wit, which pre..."

Great points all around, I agree about Ariadne and Poirot. I love reading about him, watching him work, the questions he asks to disarm people- as you say, he’s clever enough to see what suspects are really saying and showing through their answers.

What a great read!

I confess that it took me a few attempts to finally finish this novel. Each time I tried to immerse myself in the story, I got discouraged by the sheer amount of references to bridge, a game whose rules I do not know. This time, however, I persevered - and I am so glad I did! Once I decided not to let my lack of knowledge of the game get in the way of my enjoyment, I simply could not put the book down! As an extremely slow reader, it is not often that I manage to finish a book in a weekend.

In the foreword, Christie writes "(this story) was one of Hercule Poirot’s favourite cases." And, indeed, its premise is an original one: Mr. Shaitana, a fabulously rich man, asks four well-known sleuths into his home. They are soon joined by four other very special guests, each of whom are believed to have gotten away with murder! Alas, by the end of the night, the eccentric host is dead! Due to the lack of revealing physical clues, the investigation is forced to depend almost entirely on exploring the psychological profiles of the four suspects, as well as their darkest secrets.

In the author's usual fashion, a tremendous amount of clues is laid out for the perceptive reader to decipher. This time, Christie even announces her intention to "play fair" through one of her characters - "all information we receive will be pooled—that is that we will not keep any knowledge to ourselves. Our own deductions and impressions, of course, we are entitled to keep up our sleeves.� However, one would be wise not forget the Dame's typical ambushes either, for this plot is full of unexpected twists and turns. Additionally, the diverse, even if highly caricatured, group of characters is thoroughly entertaining - especially Mrs. Ariadne Oliver, the quirky crime novelist, who I prefer to believe is an alter-ego of Christie herself.

As with any novel, there is also something to be said against it. Its biggest let down is, perhaps, its exceedingly rushed ending, which comes across as anticlimactic when compared with the three preceding chapters. Additionally, one of the motives for murder is entirely unbelievable - (view spoiler)[ would anyone really commit a felony (and risk being hanged!) to cover up for a misdemeanor? (hide spoiler)] And there is, at least, one loose end as well - (view spoiler)[what is the reason behind Anne Meredith's last visit to Mrs. Lorrimer? (hide spoiler)] But, in the end, all is forgiven, since the novel's original approach to a tired genre more than makes up for its few mishaps.

Excellent review, Alchemyst

Yes, great review- I really enjoyed this one as well, somehow I missed it decades ago when I plowed through all the Poirot mysteries! Like you, I know nothing about bridge, but just ignored those bits and savored the rapport between Poirot and his fellow investigators, and the bizarre plot...