Every Wednesday, this site examines a rule or governing principle that shapes how tennis is actually played. We remain in the midst of a sequential walkthrough of The Code, exploring one principle at a time that appears within the USTA’s Friend at Court. Last week, we examined the external tension embedded in Principle 9, specifically the misguided argument that the player farther from the ball should not be permitted to make the call. This week, we turn inward to a much more delicate problem:
Either partner may make calls in doubles. Although either doubles partner may make a call, the call of a player looking down a line is more likely to be accurate than that of a player looking across a line.
USTA Friend at Court 2026 , The Code, Principle 9
What happens when doubles partners see the same ball differently? Few situations in tennis are more fraught with peril than questioning your own partner’s line call. When anyone challenges that decision, players do not merely hear disagreement in that moment, but rather an implicit accusation. It is tantamount to saying they made a bad call or are cheating. Even when none of that is intended, the emotional undercurrent is difficult to avoid.
That tension becomes even more complicated in team tennis environments, where interpersonal dynamics often extend beyond a single match. Effective teams rely on patterns of collective support. Publicly contradicting a teammate can feel less like correcting a call and more like breaking ranks.
This topic will eventually get a lot of attention when I finally get around to writing my book on the written and unwritten etiquette of tennis. The technical rules surrounding line calls are comparatively straightforward. The social dynamics… are not.
For me personally, the situation is further complicated by the fact that I am very aware that my own vision is not always perfect. Between astigmatism and progressive-lens bifocals, there are situations where I feel my visual perspective is less reliable than I would like. Because of that, I generally work under the belief that my partner likely had a better look at the ball.
That assumption simplifies some situations, but complicates others. Since I am not always confident in my eyesight, I can honestly say that I did not have a good look at the bounce if there is any question. However, in those moments when I am certain that my partner’s call was incorrect, it is with a high degree of confidence. Regardless of the circumstances, I am deeply reluctant to overrule my partner.
Principle 9 grants both partners the authority to make calls, but it does not establish a framework for routine internal overrides. More importantly, however, part of my hesitation is relational. Publicly reversing a partner’s call in front of opponents can create embarrassment and resentment that linger long after the point itself is forgotten.
Typically, I will quietly walk over to my partner and ask if they are certain.
Some partners immediately reaffirm the call with confidence, but others reconsider and quickly reverse course. The key difference is that the reevaluation happens collaboratively rather than performatively. It avoids turning the disagreement into theater for the opposing team. Tension escalates fast when anyone feels publicly cornered. A partner who might calmly reconsider a call in private may become defensive if challenged loudly from either side of the net.
None of this means partners should ignore obviously incorrect calls. There are situations where correction is absolutely appropriate and necessary. However, there is a meaningful difference between helping a partnership arrive at the right answer and publicly undermining one another in pursuit of fairness.
Ultimately, the application of Principle 9 requires the knowledge that doubles line calling is not purely a matter of optics or geometry. It is also an exercise in relationship management. Fractured trust between partners is far more impactful and harder to repair than a single missed call.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2026
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (Hardcopy.)
For readers who may be new to the organized tennis landscape, the Friend at Court is the USTA’s compendium of all rules governing sanctioned play in the United States. It includes the ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Regulations, and additional guidance specific to competition in this country. The Code is nested within the Friend at Court. That section outlines the “unwritten” traditions, expectations, and standards of conduct that guide player behavior. The Code is the ethical framework that shapes how recreational and competitive players conduct themselves every time they step onto the court.
