Continuing the theme of emulating the mechanisms of government, Eric Miller does his take on the judicial process with
Supreme Court Decision. While initially a solo trick-taking game, it can be played with two or three players, though this review will cover the solitaire.
You play the role of a lawyer trying to appeal to enough judges in the jury to make your case. The other side also has a lawyer so your goal is convince each judge enough to take your side, as represented through tricks.
Each jury has an odd number of judges of which you play to get the majority of. Judges are court cards and each rank has its own disposition(method of play) while their suit is the trump suit. Deal the cards between you, the other lawyer and the judge. Each trick starts with three of the judge's cards shown face up representing discussions. Before card play you can ask for clarity by drawing a fourth card and discarding one, this can only be done a few times per round. Either way, the majority color of the three cards signal who leads the trick, this is how every trick begins.
Your can lead any card to a trick but must follow suit otherwise any card can be played. Opponent play is by turning over two cards from its pile face up and following suit, otherwise the higher card will be played. Judges play depending on their rank: Kings will prefer to trump, Queens will follow suit but otherwise trump and Jack will follow suit but otherwise play the highest card. Equal choices of either opponent or judge play is decided by the player. Highest trump then highest of suit led wins the trick. The other two cards from the judge are then discarded.
Each round consists of seven tricks, a first stage of four then a second stage of three after a shuffle of the discard pile. Usually you win the judge if you win with the majority of tricks, but if you don't take the majority your opponent gets the judge if it has more tricks than you, but if the judge does who wins depends on the majority color on its discard pile. Winning all seven tricks gives the judge to the opponent; no judge likes a show-off.
From the get-go the game uses an unusual mechanic in who leads a trick, instead of the winner leading to the next the lead is dependent on the judge's cards. Initiative is important; you can control who wins the trick based on your lead. In the solitaire where your opponent plays rather randomly, though, there's still some surprises from the luck of the draw so do try to remember the unplayed card. A slam being a loss means skill in losing a trick.
Speaking of strategy, judges having personalities gives the whole court scenario some personality, it also forces you to change strategy every round, every round is also a different bunch of hands.
There are some downsides: The hands are never used up in a round, and the opponent's algorithm's unpredictability is hampered by its lack of satisfactory bite. Having to pick on behalf of the judge or the opponent when the choices are equal, while slightly tactical is also giving more to the player than needed. The game as it stands is essentially whist with asymmetrical goals, which might work with two players, but not as a solitaire.
But this only covers the solitaire, and as a solitaire it plays fine but can do with a more robust opponent.
