Dahal Jeet is a four-player, fixed-partnership, trick-taking card game played daily across the Terai-Madhesh region of Nepal, in which only the four tens score. Its objective is lexicographic and non-additive: a four-valued primary criterion with a trick-count tiebreak that activates on the 2–2 split and decides a third of hands, where the trick-taking games used as benchmarks all score additively. It belongs to the documented Mendikot / Dehla Pakad branch of the Court Piece family, matching Mendikot on 21 of 26 compared features, but the Nepali variant itself has no published rule description: the standard reference’s survey of card games played in Nepal lists no game of this branch, and searches of OpenAlex, arXiv, Shodhganga and Nepal Journals Online (NepJOL), in English and Devanagari, return one paper on the entire family. This paper contributes, first, a formal specification of the ruleset drawn from long-term insider participant observation across seven districts and two generations of players; and second, a computational analysis of the game built on that specification. We implement and compare 26 agents spanning hand-written heuristics, metaheuristic tuning, determinized search (PIMC, single- and multiple-observer ISMCTS), and seven families of learning agent, evaluated under duplicate-deal protocols with bootstrap confidence intervals and family-wise error control over 325 pairwise comparisons. Search dominates: the strongest agent is ISMCTS (Elo 1663.2), and no learning method exceeds a tuned heuristic. An exact double-dummy solver provides an endgame optimality bound, showing search converts 0.923 of theoretically won endgames against 0.810 for the best heuristic. We further report a negative result of practical interest: a deliberately minimal state encoding outperforms a rich hand-designed one by +0.0644 win rate, with no seed overlap. Every deterministic heuristic tested is exploitable by a search agent that knows its policy, while random play is not, and a variance decomposition attributes 29–39% of outcome variance to the deal itself. Conditioning on the deal exposes the result the title names: in a game where only the tens score, trump length predicts the outcome far more strongly than the tens dealt, moving the win rate by 0.592 against 0.254. Finally, a human trial with 10 players from 8 districts, 20 hands each, shows why the deal must be controlled before a win rate means anything: the strongest agent’s raw rate against them, 0.4800 (95% CI [0.4200, 0.5350], resampling participants), is indistinguishable from chance, yet replaying each participant’s own cards with a stand-in agent in their seat gives a paired deficit for the human of-0.0930 (95% CI [-0.1450,-0.0380]). The agent’s advantage over people is real and small, and invisible to the unpaired comparison. The protocol is not specific to this game: wherever chance dominates outcome variance, replaying each participant’s own realised deal with a stand-in agent recovers a comparison that the unpaired analysis reverses