[cardcrimson]

Does anyone have any insight as to why the number 1 team (Stanford) will play the number 2 team (USC, assuming they beat the Hahvard / Bucknell winner) in the semis? UOP, tied for #3, will face either Davis or Pepperdine in the other semi. Doesn't quite seem right. Granted UOP is hosting, but still.

And just for 2006alum, was Shaw on the seeding committee?

[cardcrimson]

Does anyone have any insight as to why the number 1 team (Stanford) will play the number 2 team (USC, assuming they beat the Hahvard / Bucknell winner) in the semis? UOP, tied for #3, will face either Davis or Pepperdine in the other semi. Doesn't quite seem right. Granted UOP is hosting, but still.

And just for 2006alum, was Shaw on the seeding committee?

[M T]

I presume you saw the discussion under the thread about the MPSF championship.

Bewildering.  When I look at articles at SwimmingWorld or SwimSwam, I think it is clear that Stanford would be considered ranked #1.  I don't see how a lower-ranked team (Pacific) that lost both its last two games against even lower-ranked teams should be be seeded #2 over USC.  I think the seeding placing in the brackets was done for other purposes (to guarantee someone other than the Big Four gets into the finals, no matter whether that is contrary to the ability of the teams), hence there was no mention of seeding in the NCAA announcement.

I imagine the coaches of the Big Four have had something to say about this "seeding" to those that matter.  The placement hurts Stanford, USC,  and UCLA. 

(By the way, I don't think the author of that SwimmingWorld article should be trusted.  Earlier this year, he published a uncredited claim that UCSB water polo was cleared of any wrongdoing by a UCSB internal investigation. That was many months after UCSB had agreed with the NCAA that violations had occurred.  You can fill in your own guess as to why he wrote that.  He did not respond to three questions from me asking about whether the NCAA investigation was done, one of which was sent to a SW's editor, two that were submitted as responses to his articles.)

I'm thinking about going to (hopefully both) Saturday & Sunday in Stockton.

[M T]

I presume you saw the discussion under the thread about the MPSF championship.

Bewildering.  When I look at articles at SwimmingWorld or SwimSwam, I think it is clear that Stanford would be considered ranked #1.  I don't see how a lower-ranked team (Pacific) that lost both its last two games against even lower-ranked teams should be be seeded #2 over USC.  I think the seeding placing in the brackets was done for other purposes (to guarantee someone other than the Big Four gets into the finals, no matter whether that is contrary to the ability of the teams), hence there was no mention of seeding in the NCAA announcement.

I imagine the coaches of the Big Four have had something to say about this "seeding" to those that matter.  The placement hurts Stanford, USC,  and UCLA. 

(By the way, I don't think the author of that SwimmingWorld article should be trusted.  Earlier this year, he published a uncredited claim that UCSB water polo was cleared of any wrongdoing by a UCSB internal investigation. That was many months after UCSB had agreed with the NCAA that violations had occurred.  You can fill in your own guess as to why he wrote that.  He did not respond to three questions from me asking about whether the NCAA investigation was done, one of which was sent to a SW's editor, two that were submitted as responses to his articles.)

I'm thinking about going to (hopefully both) Saturday & Sunday in Stockton.

[Cbocgo1]

I presume you saw the discussion under the thread about the MPSF championship.

Bewildering.  When I look at articles at SwimmingWorld or SwimSwam, I think it is clear that Stanford would be considered ranked #1.  I don't see how a lower-ranked team (Pacific) that lost both its last two games against even lower-ranked teams should be be seeded #2 over USC.  I think the seeding placing in the brackets was done for other purposes (to guarantee someone other than the Big Four gets into the finals, no matter whether that is contrary to the ability of the teams), hence there was no mention of seeding in the NCAA announcement.

I imagine the coaches of the Big Four have had something to say about this "seeding" to those that matter.  The placement hurts Stanford, USC,  and UCLA. 

(By the way, I don't think the author of that SwimmingWorld article should be trusted.  Earlier this year, he published a uncredited claim that UCSB water polo was cleared of any wrongdoing by a UCSB internal investigation. That was many months after UCSB had agreed with the NCAA that violations had occurred.  You can fill in your own guess as to why he wrote that.  He did not respond to three questions from me asking about whether the NCAA investigation was done, one of which was sent to a SW's editor, two that were submitted as responses to his articles.)

I'm thinking about going to (hopefully both) Saturday & Sunday in Stockton.

---

I must be tech-deficient, but cannot figure out to do a simple reply

The decision here could be construed suspect, but sc lost to kal in MPSF semis AND lost to UOP twice during the season, albeit by 1 and in Sept & mid Oct - UOP’s season body of work overcame their season ending 2 losses in YE GC Champ Tourney - did their hosting play a part ? I hope not

---

Bucknell upset undefeated Harvard (played nobody x UCSD) at Harvard in a non-defensive tilt - by 2

Bucknell has 4-5 players from NoCal, but the star is a Sr Serb who can flat out shoot - goalie from Lebanon who is a sieve - lack speed & depth too

sc will slaughter this team by taking Rade the Serb out of his game, countering incessantly & shooting the eyes out of the cage 

So it will be dangerous sc in semis - goalie got hot in our regular season game + they have a number of pure shooters

[Cbocgo1]

I presume you saw the discussion under the thread about the MPSF championship.

Bewildering.  When I look at articles at SwimmingWorld or SwimSwam, I think it is clear that Stanford would be considered ranked #1.  I don't see how a lower-ranked team (Pacific) that lost both its last two games against even lower-ranked teams should be be seeded #2 over USC.  I think the seeding placing in the brackets was done for other purposes (to guarantee someone other than the Big Four gets into the finals, no matter whether that is contrary to the ability of the teams), hence there was no mention of seeding in the NCAA announcement.

I imagine the coaches of the Big Four have had something to say about this "seeding" to those that matter.  The placement hurts Stanford, USC,  and UCLA. 

(By the way, I don't think the author of that SwimmingWorld article should be trusted.  Earlier this year, he published a uncredited claim that UCSB water polo was cleared of any wrongdoing by a UCSB internal investigation. That was many months after UCSB had agreed with the NCAA that violations had occurred.  You can fill in your own guess as to why he wrote that.  He did not respond to three questions from me asking about whether the NCAA investigation was done, one of which was sent to a SW's editor, two that were submitted as responses to his articles.)

I'm thinking about going to (hopefully both) Saturday & Sunday in Stockton.

---

I must be tech-deficient, but cannot figure out to do a simple reply

The decision here could be construed suspect, but sc lost to kal in MPSF semis AND lost to UOP twice during the season, albeit by 1 and in Sept & mid Oct - UOP’s season body of work overcame their season ending 2 losses in YE GC Champ Tourney - did their hosting play a part ? I hope not

---

Bucknell upset undefeated Harvard (played nobody x UCSD) at Harvard in a non-defensive tilt - by 2

Bucknell has 4-5 players from NoCal, but the star is a Sr Serb who can flat out shoot - goalie from Lebanon who is a sieve - lack speed & depth too

sc will slaughter this team by taking Rade the Serb out of his game, countering incessantly & shooting the eyes out of the cage 

So it will be dangerous sc in semis - goalie got hot in our regular season game + they have a number of pure shooters

[martyup]

Water polo officiating is so subjective.  Let's hope we can build big leads so the refs can't rob us.

[martyup]

Water polo officiating is so subjective.  Let's hope we can build big leads so the refs can't rob us.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, the setup seems very weird.  With 7 teams, wouldn’t the easiest thing bet to give the top seed a first round bye?  Instead, what this looks like is that they have a play-in game to play into a six team tournament.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, the setup seems very weird.  With 7 teams, wouldn’t the easiest thing bet to give the top seed a first round bye?  Instead, what this looks like is that they have a play-in game to play into a six team tournament.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Yeah, the setup seems very weird.  With 7 teams, wouldn’t the easiest thing bet to give the top seed a first round bye?  Instead, what this looks like is that they have a play-in game to play into a six team tournament.

BC

What might be helpful for the sport in the long term, is have a mini play in tournament for the schools outside of CA. They seemed to have had a one game play in this year between Bucknell and Harvard. On the women's side, I think it would make a lot of sense, as there are some pretty good teams in the Midwest and on the East Coast that are seeded with girls from California clubs.

[cardcrimson]

Yeah, the setup seems very weird.  With 7 teams, wouldn’t the easiest thing bet to give the top seed a first round bye?  Instead, what this looks like is that they have a play-in game to play into a six team tournament.

BC

What might be helpful for the sport in the long term, is have a mini play in tournament for the schools outside of CA. They seemed to have had a one game play in this year between Bucknell and Harvard. On the women's side, I think it would make a lot of sense, as there are some pretty good teams in the Midwest and on the East Coast that are seeded with girls from California clubs.

[Gary86]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable. Some pundits did not think they even deserved to make the tournament after their flameout in the Golden Coast Conference tournament. Stanford will have to win two games against two tough opponents, which is what it always takes. Maybe this is our year. I firmly believe that Stanford is the best team, but they are going to have to prove it. I'm sure they still have a bitter taste in their mouth from last year's championship loss.

[Gary86]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable. Some pundits did not think they even deserved to make the tournament after their flameout in the Golden Coast Conference tournament. Stanford will have to win two games against two tough opponents, which is what it always takes. Maybe this is our year. I firmly believe that Stanford is the best team, but they are going to have to prove it. I'm sure they still have a bitter taste in their mouth from last year's championship loss.

[CTcard]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable.

Are you sure those are the seedings?
[I don't know; the NCAA has been very coy about seeding for this tournament.]

Neither the official tournament bracket, nor the announcement specifies seeding - other than to note that the top two seeds are automatically in the semifinal (Stanford and UOP). 

By virtue of how the bracket is constructed, it would appear that $C is seeded above Pepperdine/Davis as they get to play the winner of the Harvard-Bucknell play-in game (Harvard). That would make $C the third seed. Then if you follow standard bracket structure Stanford would be the two seed. This would make UOP's #1 seed even more debatable.

Of course it could be that they have the #4 seed playing the winner of the #6-#7 play-in game, and then the #3 and #5 seeds play - but that would be equally odd.

As I noted in the MPSF thread, the bracket construction would indicate the following seeds:
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

[CTcard]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable.

Are you sure those are the seedings?
[I don't know; the NCAA has been very coy about seeding for this tournament.]

Neither the official tournament bracket, nor the announcement specifies seeding - other than to note that the top two seeds are automatically in the semifinal (Stanford and UOP). 

By virtue of how the bracket is constructed, it would appear that $C is seeded above Pepperdine/Davis as they get to play the winner of the Harvard-Bucknell play-in game (Harvard). That would make $C the third seed. Then if you follow standard bracket structure Stanford would be the two seed. This would make UOP's #1 seed even more debatable.

Of course it could be that they have the #4 seed playing the winner of the #6-#7 play-in game, and then the #3 and #5 seeds play - but that would be equally odd.

As I noted in the MPSF thread, the bracket construction would indicate the following seeds:
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

[Gary86]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable.

Are you sure those are the seedings?
[I don't know; the NCAA has been very coy about seeding for this tournament.]

Neither the official tournament bracket, nor the announcement specifies seeding - other than to note that the top two seeds are automatically in the semifinal (Stanford and UOP). 

By virtue of how the bracket is constructed, it would appear that $C is seeded above Pepperdine/Davis as they get to play the winner of the Harvard-Bucknell play-in game (Harvard). That would make $C the third seed. Then if you follow standard bracket structure Stanford would be the two seed. This would make UOP's #1 seed even more debatable.

Of course it could be that they have the #4 seed playing the winner of the #6-#7 play-in game, and then the #3 and #5 seeds play - but that would be equally odd.

As I noted in the MPSF thread, the bracket construction would indicate the following seeds:
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

I saw the bracket on the NCAA site before they picked the teams. They had the different spots in the bracket with the seeding for each spot but with no teams listed. But you are right, it does not make sense to have a #4 seed play the winner of #6 vs #7.  UOP getting the #1 seed does not make sense either though based on their results this season.

[Gary86]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable.

Are you sure those are the seedings?
[I don't know; the NCAA has been very coy about seeding for this tournament.]

Neither the official tournament bracket, nor the announcement specifies seeding - other than to note that the top two seeds are automatically in the semifinal (Stanford and UOP). 

By virtue of how the bracket is constructed, it would appear that $C is seeded above Pepperdine/Davis as they get to play the winner of the Harvard-Bucknell play-in game (Harvard). That would make $C the third seed. Then if you follow standard bracket structure Stanford would be the two seed. This would make UOP's #1 seed even more debatable.

Of course it could be that they have the #4 seed playing the winner of the #6-#7 play-in game, and then the #3 and #5 seeds play - but that would be equally odd.

As I noted in the MPSF thread, the bracket construction would indicate the following seeds:
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

I saw the bracket on the NCAA site before they picked the teams. They had the different spots in the bracket with the seeding for each spot but with no teams listed. But you are right, it does not make sense to have a #4 seed play the winner of #6 vs #7.  UOP getting the #1 seed does not make sense either though based on their results this season.

[teejers1]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable.

Are you sure those are the seedings?
[I don't know; the NCAA has been very coy about seeding for this tournament.]

Neither the official tournament bracket, nor the announcement specifies seeding - other than to note that the top two seeds are automatically in the semifinal (Stanford and UOP). 

By virtue of how the bracket is constructed, it would appear that $C is seeded above Pepperdine/Davis as they get to play the winner of the Harvard-Bucknell play-in game (Harvard). That would make $C the third seed. Then if you follow standard bracket structure Stanford would be the two seed. This would make UOP's #1 seed even more debatable.

Of course it could be that they have the #4 seed playing the winner of the #6-#7 play-in game, and then the #3 and #5 seeds play - but that would be equally odd.

As I noted in the MPSF thread, the bracket construction would indicate the following seeds:
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

I saw the bracket on the NCAA site before they picked the teams. They had the different spots in the bracket with the seeding for each spot but with no teams listed. But you are right, it does not make sense to have a #4 seed play the winner of #6 vs #7.  UOP getting the #1 seed does not make sense either though based on their results this season.

Let's just call it for what it is:  an unfair and jerry-rigged bracket to ensure that Stanford and SC (the 2 best teams) don't meet in the finals.  If I really cared about Stanford MWP, then I'd be pissed.  And if I were an SC MWP fanatic, I'd be pissed, too.

[teejers1]

USC is the #4 seed in the tournament, which is why they are on the same side of the bracket as Stanford. Can't say I agree with the #4 seeding but that's what the NCAA came up with. UOP's #2 seeding is also debatable.

Are you sure those are the seedings?
[I don't know; the NCAA has been very coy about seeding for this tournament.]

Neither the official tournament bracket, nor the announcement specifies seeding - other than to note that the top two seeds are automatically in the semifinal (Stanford and UOP). 

By virtue of how the bracket is constructed, it would appear that $C is seeded above Pepperdine/Davis as they get to play the winner of the Harvard-Bucknell play-in game (Harvard). That would make $C the third seed. Then if you follow standard bracket structure Stanford would be the two seed. This would make UOP's #1 seed even more debatable.

Of course it could be that they have the #4 seed playing the winner of the #6-#7 play-in game, and then the #3 and #5 seeds play - but that would be equally odd.

As I noted in the MPSF thread, the bracket construction would indicate the following seeds:
#7 - Bucknell
#6 - Harvard (hosting 6-7 game)
#5/4 - Davis
#4/5 - Pepperdine
#3 - $C
#2 - Stanford
#1 - Pacific

I saw the bracket on the NCAA site before they picked the teams. They had the different spots in the bracket with the seeding for each spot but with no teams listed. But you are right, it does not make sense to have a #4 seed play the winner of #6 vs #7.  UOP getting the #1 seed does not make sense either though based on their results this season.

Let's just call it for what it is:  an unfair and jerry-rigged bracket to ensure that Stanford and SC (the 2 best teams) don't meet in the finals.  If I really cared about Stanford MWP, then I'd be pissed.  And if I were an SC MWP fanatic, I'd be pissed, too.

[82lsju]

so we are the #1 seed

Top-ranked and No. 1-seed Stanford (19-2) is making its 33rd appearance in the NCAA Championship

https://admin.gostanford.com/gameday/men..._preview__

[82lsju]

so we are the #1 seed

Top-ranked and No. 1-seed Stanford (19-2) is making its 33rd appearance in the NCAA Championship

https://admin.gostanford.com/gameday/men..._preview__

[cardcrimson]

That means USC is seeded lower than both Pepperdine and Davis. . . .tis a puzzlement.

so we are the #1 seed

Top-ranked and No. 1-seed Stanford (19-2) is making its 33rd appearance in the NCAA Championship

https://admin.gostanford.com/gameday/men..._preview__

[cardcrimson]

That means USC is seeded lower than both Pepperdine and Davis. . . .tis a puzzlement.

so we are the #1 seed

Top-ranked and No. 1-seed Stanford (19-2) is making its 33rd appearance in the NCAA Championship

https://admin.gostanford.com/gameday/men..._preview__

[CTcard]

That means USC is seeded lower than both Pepperdine and Davis. . . .tis a puzzlement.

so we are the #1 seed

Top-ranked and No. 1-seed Stanford (19-2) is making its 33rd appearance in the NCAA Championship

https://admin.gostanford.com/gameday/men..._preview__

I have to say that at this point I am wondering whether there is real seeding for this tournament - and whether the official site writer just made what should be the obvious assumption about Stanford being the top seed. 

It may be that they simply chose a top two to get byes to the semifinals, a bottom two for the play-in game, then lined up the games to give the host their best possible chance to advance.

[CTcard]

That means USC is seeded lower than both Pepperdine and Davis. . . .tis a puzzlement.

so we are the #1 seed

Top-ranked and No. 1-seed Stanford (19-2) is making its 33rd appearance in the NCAA Championship

https://admin.gostanford.com/gameday/men..._preview__

I have to say that at this point I am wondering whether there is real seeding for this tournament - and whether the official site writer just made what should be the obvious assumption about Stanford being the top seed. 

It may be that they simply chose a top two to get byes to the semifinals, a bottom two for the play-in game, then lined up the games to give the host their best possible chance to advance.

[82lsju]

I have to say that at this point I am wondering whether there is real seeding for this tournament - and whether the official site writer just made what should be the obvious assumption about Stanford being the top seed. 

It may be that they simply chose a top two to get byes to the semifinals, a bottom two for the play-in game, then lined up the games to give the host their best possible chance to advance.

from the USC water polo page

The top two seeds — MPSF Tournament champion Stanford and at-large selection and host Pacific — have earned a place in the semifinal round,

https://usctrojans.com/news/2019/12/3/me...ckton.aspx

and UOP graphic indicating they are #2 seed

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5Rr5WRFtpE/

[82lsju]

I have to say that at this point I am wondering whether there is real seeding for this tournament - and whether the official site writer just made what should be the obvious assumption about Stanford being the top seed. 

It may be that they simply chose a top two to get byes to the semifinals, a bottom two for the play-in game, then lined up the games to give the host their best possible chance to advance.

from the USC water polo page

The top two seeds — MPSF Tournament champion Stanford and at-large selection and host Pacific — have earned a place in the semifinal round,

https://usctrojans.com/news/2019/12/3/me...ckton.aspx

and UOP graphic indicating they are #2 seed

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5Rr5WRFtpE/

[martyup]

Now it's moot.

[martyup]

Now it's moot.

[cardcrimson]

Now it's moot.

Except that one team faced USC while the other faced Pepperdine. One went to triple overtime. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Now it's moot.

Except that one team faced USC while the other faced Pepperdine. One went to triple overtime. . . .

[martyup]

Now it's moot.

Except that one team faced USC while the other faced Pepperdine. One went to triple overtime. . . .

No doubt it was BS seeding.  Happily we survived it.

[martyup]

Now it's moot.

Except that one team faced USC while the other faced Pepperdine. One went to triple overtime. . . .

No doubt it was BS seeding.  Happily we survived it.

[yvonne]

Does anyone have any insight as to why the number 1 team (Stanford) will play the number 2 team (USC, assuming they beat the Hahvard / Bucknell winner) in the semis? UOP, tied for #3, will face either Davis or Pepperdine in the other semi. Doesn't quite seem right. Granted UOP is hosting, but still.

And just for 2006alum, was Shaw on the seeding committee?

Wow you guys would take advantage of a water polo thread to denigrate Shaw? smh

[yvonne]

Does anyone have any insight as to why the number 1 team (Stanford) will play the number 2 team (USC, assuming they beat the Hahvard / Bucknell winner) in the semis? UOP, tied for #3, will face either Davis or Pepperdine in the other semi. Doesn't quite seem right. Granted UOP is hosting, but still.

And just for 2006alum, was Shaw on the seeding committee?

Wow you guys would take advantage of a water polo thread to denigrate Shaw? smh

[Viking_Guy]

A couple of thoughts before the final.

Yesterday was about the clearest example of turtling being a problem that I can remember. Stanford went to a run the clock offense ahead three with about 2:15 left; I remember watching Chun hold onto the ball for a good 15 seconds before starting the offense. Three times with the ball, and only really trying to score on the last one, after SC had scored in under 15 seconds on each possession.  Hope it doesn’t come into play today.

And it might not,because, jovan or no jovan, SC is still the past masters of drawing fouls.  In this case, drawing exclusions in transition to stop the clock, give them a precious few seconds to get down the pool and set up, and have a man advantage when they do. I can’t say anything about the particulars in this case, because the camera stayed on SC’s goalie with the ball. But it such a long-term pattern, I wish Stanford’s strategy would take it into account.

Hoping that Hallock keeps his head,  because I’m betting pacific will trade multiple exclusions on their players for getting him in foul trouble.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

A couple of thoughts before the final.

Yesterday was about the clearest example of turtling being a problem that I can remember. Stanford went to a run the clock offense ahead three with about 2:15 left; I remember watching Chun hold onto the ball for a good 15 seconds before starting the offense. Three times with the ball, and only really trying to score on the last one, after SC had scored in under 15 seconds on each possession.  Hope it doesn’t come into play today.

And it might not,because, jovan or no jovan, SC is still the past masters of drawing fouls.  In this case, drawing exclusions in transition to stop the clock, give them a precious few seconds to get down the pool and set up, and have a man advantage when they do. I can’t say anything about the particulars in this case, because the camera stayed on SC’s goalie with the ball. But it such a long-term pattern, I wish Stanford’s strategy would take it into account.

Hoping that Hallock keeps his head,  because I’m betting pacific will trade multiple exclusions on their players for getting him in foul trouble.

VG

[d4cohn]

6-3 Card after 1.

[d4cohn]

6-3 Card after 1.