I am primarily regarded as a singles player. As an introvert, I am wired to enjoy the solitude and isolation of playing singles. This places me in the minority of adult women players. I also suffer from occasional bouts of insanely poor shot selection. It is good not have to periodically apologize to my doubles partner for wildly poor decisions on the court.
I do play doubles, and I am not terrible at it. When playing with a new partner, I frequently encounter surprise that I will serve from either end and receive from either side with absolutely no preference for one or the other. Both sides and ends have to be played in singles matches and my training objective is to have no discernible difference from either side or end. It simply doesn’t matter to me. Sometimes I think that to be regarded as a true doubles player that there would have to be a preference.
That preamble brings us to the first rule in the USTA Friend at Court/ITF Rules of Tennis that exclusively applies to doubles.
The team which is due to receive in the first game of a set shall decide which player shall receive the first point in the game. Similarly, before the second game starts, their opponents shall decide which player shall receive the first point of that game. The player who was the receiver’s partner for the first point of the game shall receive the second point and this rotation shall continue until the end of the game and the set.
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, Section 15
A careful reading of the rule reveals that it is completely ambiguous. The correct interpretation is that the receiving team selects who will play the deuce court and who will play the ad court. Those are the sides that the players will play for the duration of the set.
A person who had never seen tennis played before might read the rule as meaning that the players on a doubles team strictly alternate receiving each point. Thus, if the first receiving game was won on the 40-15 point, then the player in the ad court would receive the first point of the next receiving game. That is NOT the correct interpretation, but that could not be proven on the basis of how the rule is worded.
I am both flabbergasted and delighted to discover this ambiguity, as I keep stumbling across the forms and procedures for how to petition for tennis rule changes. I am becoming increasingly curious about how such requests are processed and dispositioned, and I can see this escalating to the point that I may succumb to the temptation to try it, if only for the experience.
It is comforting to know that there might be areas in which there is a legitimate reason to request a modification.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
