We are continuing our meticulous, and admittedly overthought, breakdown of The Code, one principle at a time. This is the fourth consecutive week focused on Principle 3, which governs player behavior during the warm-up. It is also the penultimate installment devoted to this principle. After working through refusal to warm up, cooperative shot placement, and the spirit behind those directives, we arrive at the last sentence in the sequence. It is short, optional, and borderline radical.
If partners want to warm each other up while their opponents are warming up, they may do so.
USTA Friend at Court 2025 , The Code, Principle 3 (Partial Excerpt)
I do not think I have ever seen this happen in a tennis match. In decades of league play, tournaments, and recreational competition, I cannot recall a single instance where doubles partners chose to warm up with each other while the opposing team did the same. Yet this practice is entirely normal in other sports. Beach volleyball partners routinely warm up together. Pickleball players almost always do. Tennis, by contrast, has culturally locked itself into the opponent-to-opponent warm-up, even though The Code explicitly allows another option.
What makes this even more interesting is that this language is not new. The allowance for partners to warm each other up appears verbatim in the 2000 reference version of The Code that we are using for historical context. In that earlier edition, it appeared as a parenthetical, as an aside. Over time, that parenthetical was promoted into the main text of the principle. That editorial shift suggests intent. This was not an accidental survival of outdated language. It was preserved, clarified, and elevated.
There are, in fact, several compelling reasons why partner-to-partner warm-ups make sense. The most obvious is quality control. As discussed in earlier posts, poor warm-ups can result from nerves or lack of control, but they can also cross into gamesmanship. Allowing each team to warm up internally eliminates the risk of being stuck with an unproductive or intentionally disruptive exchange. Both teams can ensure a functional, purposeful warm-up that actually prepares them to play.
Warming up with one’s partner also allows players to serve from the end they will actually use in the match. That matters more than you might think. Sun position, wind direction, and visual background all affect serve rhythm and ball toss. Partner warm-ups allow teams to address those conditions deliberately rather than hope they get a chance during a shared warm-up sequence.
There is also a tactical fairness aspect. Under the traditional model, one team can drift to the net and volley until the warm-up time expires, effectively denying the other team equivalent preparation. Partner-to-partner warm-ups prevent that imbalance entirely. Each team controls how it allocates its warm-up time, without relying on reciprocal courtesy from opponents.
That said, this approach is not without drawbacks. Ball management becomes more complicated. One team could easily wind up with two of the three balls, creating an advantage if not carefully managed. The overall flow of the warm-up would be less intuitive at first, and players would need to adapt to new rhythms and expectations. None of these issues are insurmountable, but they do introduce friction.
There is also a more personal downside for me. I would miss the opportunity to scout my opponents during the warm-up. Watching stroke mechanics, movement patterns, and tendencies in those first few minutes provides useful information. Partner warm-ups remove that window entirely. While that may be a feature rather than a bug for some players, it is a real tradeoff.
If the USTA or another 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 it aligns with practices in other sports. Players would adapt quickly. As with many procedural norms in tennis, any resistance would likely be more cultural than practical.
Although this sentence concludes Principle 3, it does not conclude the conversation. A reader comment sparked one final post on this topic, one that addresses the unwritten principle behind the unwritten principles. Even when The Code gives players options, how those options are exercised still matters.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2025
- 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.