In another question in EL&U "Positives changes on the cards" — meaning? ,
it came up that at least one of us AmE speakers had always heard this idiom as "in the cards" and never as "on the cards", whereas at least one BrE speaker had always heard it as "on the cards", never as "in the cards".
However, Ngram searches show both forms in literature from both sides of the pond, with "in the cards" clearly in the lead (since before "on the cards" occurs, up to the present); it is now about 20x more common in BrE corpus, and about 100x more common in AmE corpus.
However, "on the cards" does not seem to appear in AmE corpus before c. 1850, and not before c. 1825 in BrE corpus.
Answers to a related question favor the Tarot explanation for both. One quotes a source claiming Charles Dickens as first documented use. However, looking at quotations of Charles Dickens I have found, so far, only literal meanings, referring to playing cards used in gambling, not Tarot, and not using the idiom in the sense we know it now.
I suspect the origin of the two varying phrases might differ. Could someone please explain how, and from where, these two similar idioms arose? Can anyone prove that one form is indeed just a variation on the other?
Best Answer
What the idiom dictionaries say
There appears to be a clear split in preference between British English usage and U.S. English usage on this idiom. Christine Ammer, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idiom (1996) offers this discussion:
John Ayto, Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms, third edition (2009) agrees with Ammer that "in the cards" is simply a later variant of "on the cards":
Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms (1998) seems a bit less sure about the distribution of usage of the two terms than Ammer and Ayto are:
But it agrees that in UK "on the cards" is primary form used. Perhaps in North America "on the cards" was influenced by "in the stars" (which seems to mean something similar when used as in Cassius's speech in Julius Caear, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars/But in ourselves, that we are underlings") to become "in the cards."
Early Google Books matches
I ran Google Books searches from 1700 forward for "on the cards," "in the cards," "not on the cards," and "not in the cards." One very early match for "[not] in the cards" appears in Charles Churchill, "Independence," in The Gentleman's and London Magazine (September 1764):
This sense of "in the cards" seems to be the the one that remains current today—namely, "destined to become reality"—but oddly enough, it uses in, not on, despite being a British instance. The first instance of "[not] in the cards" appears a generation later. From "New Parliament," in The London Magazine (April 1784):
Here, it seems to me, the meaning is somewhat different: "on the cards" seems to mean "the responsibility of fortune," although the precise meaning isn't easy to deduce. In any case, both eighteenth-century examples seem to be referring to the practice of using playing cards to foretell the future.
The first instance I found of "on the cards" in the sense of "possible" is from "Chess without the Chess-board," in Fraser's Magazine (March 1840):
A final point of possible interest arises in connection with a discussion of the game Minchiate in Samuel Singer, Researches Into the History of Playing Cards (1816):
The odd thing here is that the phrase "game on the cards" seems to be synonymous with "game of cards" or "card game." In fact Singer uses the wording "game on the cards" three times in his book, and "game of Cards" five times (only once with a lowercase c). I don't know what the significance of the difference in capitalization is, but in the instances of "game on the cards," the c is never capitalized. An earlier example of "game on the cards" appears in 1782, in the context of a description of a game called Lottery Tickets.
--------------------
Digression: What do British lords make of the expression 'on the cards'?
As Ammer suggests, in the cards is the overwhelming favorite among U.S. English speakers. I remember the first time I encountered "on the cards" because it arose in a legal opinion I was reading for a first-year Contracts class in law school. In Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries (1949), Lord Justice Asquith permitted himself to use the phrase in order (he thought) to clarify the level of certainty he had in mind as a standard for cases of breach of contract:
Or perhaps not. In Koufos v. Czarnikow (1967) the House of Lords took up the question of what Lord Asquith meant by "on the cards" and struggled a bit with the phrase's pungent odor of informality. Lord Reid made these points:
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest contributed this:
And Lord Pearce weighed in with this comment:
Moral of story: Don't anticipate smooth sailing for your legal reasoning if you've couched it in a colloquialism and if the reviewing board consists of a bunch of Peers.