>The psycholofy of the question is this: sometimes a card is just a card and has nothing to do with programming. The ability to abstract, that is, to apply aspects of object-oriented programming to the image of a deck of cards, well it is not programming.
>
>Programming is a left-brain exercise; the use of an illustration such as a deck of cards involves the right brain.
>
>One doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with the other.
>
>I am of the opinion that, if you want to ask a question about OOP, ask a question about OOP, not about something abstract like how it relates to a deck of cards. That way, you will actually determine the candidate's knowledge of OOP.
>
>Besides, in this day and age, it might be politically incorrect to ask about cards, because cards could be either gambling or prognostication, and potentially in violation of the applicant's religion.
>
>But that's just my opinion.

That was my point as well <g> The simple way to determine OOP knowledge would be to ask some real-word examples for each of OOP principle. Though this also may be hard to define when asked right on the spot.

One of the simple questions which I was asked once on the interview was to explain difference between class and an object. I did, of course, answered this, but was not chosen anyway <g>