Here is another split-deck decision-making spread. It formalizes the involvement of other people who may have a stake in the matter, whether to aid, obstruct or take advantage of the seeker. This is accomplished by separating the court cards from the deck and dealing them into specific positions reflecting the above possibilities. Human beings are fundamentally social creatures who make few important decision without considering the impact on their immediate associates or on a broader spectrum of stake-holders. I’ve never been satisfied with the fact that court cards have a significant chance of not showing up at all when their interaction with the seeker is central to the matter at hand, forcing us to draw our conclusions in more roundabout ways. Giving them an automatic say in such readings seems like a sensible thing to do; the seeker is then free to decide what to do about their input.
The spread is dealt in three separate steps after removing the court cards and setting them aside: 1) shuffle the remaining cards and populate the six positions of the main string; 2) shuffle the court cards and populate the three interactive positions that identify who the other people are; 3) shuffle the balance of the deck and populate the three interactive positions that show how those individuals might behave in pursuing their objectives. The main string of six cards is read as a “before-and-after” sequence with the four middle cards suggesting what action should be taken and what adjustments might have to be made based on the intervention of other people who are intent on “stirring the pot.”