Latest Posts

What Tennis Can (and Cannot) Learn from Albert Einstein Ace, Marvel, Spy: A Novel of Alice Marble The Final Tiebreaker The Geau Axiom Duffel Bag Tennis Beyond the Headlines: April 21, 2025 A Tennis Resurrection Story for Easter USTA League via the Captain’s Letters

Two Serves or Not Two Serves, That is the Question

In the “History of the Service Let” we discussed that there really isn’t a satisfactory reason recorded as to why the service let even exists. One speculative reason is that the rule is in place because the server already has too much of an advantage with two opportunities at first strike of the ball. This brings us to the obvious question as to why the server is granted two serves at all.

Additional Let Rules

In “Not Quite Ready to Receive” it was discussed that if the receiver is not ready then the serve cannot be called a fault. I missed the subtlety of the usage of the word fault in that coverage of the rule. It was clear that the serve cannot be counted against the receiver if the receiver is not ready. The nuance is that the serve cannot be counted against the server either if it does not fall in.

The Let During a Serve

The word let, when used as a noun, is literally defined as “something that impedes: obstruction.” The idiom “without let or hindrance” is commonly used in British law to mean “without being interfered with.” With those two sentences this project has now covered the full spectrum of possible content gravitas, ranging from language arts on one end to funny YouTube videos on the other.

The Service Fault: Fratricide

Without question, the two most painful times I have been struck by a tennis ball on the court were delivered courtesy of my own doubles partner. One of those was on my partner’s serve where I was hit so hard that the seams of the ball were clearly visible on the bruise. Fortunately that ball struck my butt, the most well padded part of my body. This brings us to the final way a service fault can be committed that I call fratricide.