I have been doing a little experiment, and I may have discovered a way to win third set tiebreaks when you won the first set but lost the second. [edit: I meant match tiebreak. Sorry.] It has happened to all of us, I'll bet. You win the first set, but somehow your opponents win the second set. Maybe they adopted some dramatically different strategy. More likely, they just played a little better, they discovered a weakness in you, or you got a little tight. On three occasions, my partner and I have switched receiving sides to begin the third set tiebreak. In two cases, we ran away with the tiebreak. In the third case, we built up a lead and had triple match point before we suffered an Attack Of The Stupids and lost the tiebreak 9-11. Keep in mind that I am an ad player and my partners are deuce players, so we are actually switching to our weaker receiving sides, yet we still win. Why might this tactic be successful? I think it is because it breaks the momentum the other team built up throughout the second set. They figured out what they needed to do. By switching it up and changing receiving sides, all of their strategies become scrambled. They are less sure about whether to come in or stay back. They don't know what weaknesses, tendencies and weapons each of us have when we are receiving on the other side. By the time they figure it out, the tiebreak is over. My theory is that this technique won't work as well when you lost the first set and won the second. You have the momentum; why change? Has anyone else had any experience that validates or refutes my theory? I think the conventional wisdom is that switching receiving sides is for partners who don't play together often, and that is true. Doing it for the third set tiebreak might be an exception to the rule.