We continue our careful, if exaggerated, analysis of the situation The codeone principle at a time. This is the fourth week in a row that focuses on principle 3, which governs the behavior of players during the warm-up. It is also the penultimate episode dedicated to this principle. After going through the refusal to warm up, the cooperative shot placement, and the spirit behind these guidelines, we come to the final sentence in the series. It’s short, optional and borderline radical.
If partners want to warm up each other while their opponents are warming up, they may do so.
USTA Friend to Court 2025, The Code, Principle 3 (Partial Excerpt)
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this happen in a tennis match. In decades of league, tournament and recreational competition, I cannot recall a single instance where doubles partners chose to warm up with each other while the opponent did the same. Yet this practice is completely normal in other sports. Beach volleyball partners routinely warm up together. Pickleball players almost always do that. Tennis, on the other hand, has culturally locked itself into the opponent-to-opponent warm-up, even though the Code explicitly allows for another option.
What makes this even more interesting is that this language is not new. The compensation for partners to warm each other up is literally stated in the 2000 reference version of The code which we use for historical context. In that earlier edition it appeared as a parenthetical, as an aside. Over time, this parenthetical was promoted to the body of the principle. That editorial shift indicates intent. This was no accidental survival of old-fashioned language. It was preserved, clarified and elevated.
In fact, there are several compelling reasons why partner-to-partner warm-ups make sense. The most obvious is quality control. As discussed in previous posts, poor warm-ups can be the result of nerves or lack of control, but they can also spill over into gamesmanship. Warming up each team internally eliminates the risk of getting stuck in an unproductive or deliberately disruptive exchange. Both teams can provide a functional, targeted warm-up that actually prepares them for play.
By warming up with the partner, players can serve from the end they will actually use in the match. That’s more important than you might think. The position of the sun, the wind direction and the visual background all influence the serving rhythm and ball throw. Partner warm-ups allow teams to consciously address these circumstances rather than hoping for a chance during a shared warm-up.
There is also an aspect of tactical justice. Under the traditional model, one team can float to the net and play volleyball until the warm-up time has expired, essentially depriving the other team of equivalent preparation. Partner-to-partner warm-ups prevent this imbalance completely. Each team decides how to divide its warm-up time, without relying on the mutual politeness of opponents.
That said, this approach is not without its drawbacks. Ball management becomes more complicated. One team could easily obtain two of the three balls, creating an advantage if not managed carefully. The overall flow of the warm-up would be less intuitive at first and players would have to adapt to new rhythms and expectations. None of these problems are insurmountable, but they do cause friction.
There is also a more personal disadvantage for me. I would miss the opportunity to scout my opponents during warm-up. Watching the mechanics, movement patterns, and tendencies of a stroke in those first few minutes provides useful information. Partner warm-ups remove that window completely. While that may be a feature rather than a bug for some players, it’s a real trade-off.
If the USTA or any other governing body ever chose to actively promote partner-to-partner warm-ups, I would be intrigued and comfortable with the change. It is clearly permitted under the Code and aligns with practices in other sports. Players would adapt quickly. As with many procedural norms in tennis, any resistance is likely to be more cultural than practical.
Although this sentence concludes Principle 3, it does not conclude the conversation. A comment from a reader led to a final post on this topic, one that addresses the unwritten principle behind the unwritten principles. Even if the Code gives players options, how those options are exercised still matters.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and RegulationsUSTA, 2025
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (On paper.)
For readers who may be new to the organized tennis landscape, the Friend at Court is the USTA’s compendium of all the rules governing sanctioned play in the United States. It contains the ITF tennis rules, USTA regulations, and additional guidelines specific to competition in this country. The Code is nested in the Friend at Court. That section describes the “unwritten” traditions, expectations, and standards of behavior that govern player behavior. The Code is the ethical framework that governs how recreational and competitive players behave every time they take the field.
#Warm #doubles #partner