I figured out what this issue is. This test case actually showed a bug using the SUITS table in 9-card evaluation. The original SUITS table uses 12-bit binaries as the key. So that each suit has 3 bits. That means each suit can hold at most 8 different states (0 to 7 cards). In the 9-card case, when one suit has 8 cards and another suit has 1 card, the suit with 8 cards will have an overflow.

For example, as the code mentioned, number 520, 0b1000001000. This could represent the lowest suit has 8 cards, and the highest suit has 1 card. But also, it may represent the second lowest suit has 1 card, and the second highest suit has 8 cards. So here is the conflict.

In order to fix this bug, in the later implementation for 9-card evaluation, I discarded using the SUITS table, and just counted the suits one by one. Later on, the 9-card evaluation code had been deprecated, and had been replaced by Omaha evaluation, which still doesn't use the SUITS table.

Therefore, to fix this test case, I think we can just avoid testing the 9-card case (and 8-card case can be dropped too). And the whole block under the TODO comment can be removed safely.

Thank you for explaining the bug in the SUITS table for 9-card evaluations in the C++ implementation.
However, the Python implementation in evaluator.py still uses the SUITS table:

def _evaluate_cards(*cards: int) -> int:
    ...
    flush_suit = SUITS[suit_hash] - 1

Simply removing the 8-card and 9-card test cases in test_dptables.py without updating SUITS or modifying the Python code may lead to inconsistencies.

I suggest:

• If SUITS is no longer needed in Python, update evaluator.py to remove the dependency and implement suit counting like in C++.
• If SUITS is still required, update it in dptables.py to handle them up to 7-card correctly.
  • Then, update test_dptables.py with test cases for the updated SUITS or modified evaluator.py.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

But we don't use _evaluate_cards for 8 and 9 cards anymore. These have been deprecated.

    if not (MIN_CARDS <= hand_size <= MAX_CARDS) or (hand_size not in NO_FLUSHES):
        msg = (
            f"The number of cards must be between {MIN_CARDS} and {MAX_CARDS}."
            f"passed size: {hand_size}"
        )
        raise ValueError(msg)

    return _evaluate_cards(*int_cards)

Here MAX_CARDS is 7.

Ah, I get your point. I am currently working on this suggestion.

If SUITS is still required, update it in dptables.py to handle them up to 7-card correctly.
Then, update test_dptables.py with test cases for the updated SUITS or modified evaluator.py.