In the new issue of Tennis magazine, the Court of Appeals gave a very odd answer to a query: "On my partner's serve in a doubles match, he picked up a ball that he thought we had been playing with and proceeded to serve. After returning the serve into the net, the receiver called a let because the ball was dead. I said he could not call a let because he tried to return the ball and failed. My partner ended up giving him a let, but I didn't agree. Who was right?" The answer from Tennis magazine was that, if the ball was not broken (but just a dud), the point stands, citing Rule 3, Case 1 (which says the point stands if a ball is soft at the end of a point.) The guy at Tennis magazine seems to have missed the part where the server picked up the wrong ball, which would be a violation of the ball change provisions also contained in Rule 3. Anyway, if Tennis magazine is right, then a server could pick up a dead old ball from an adjoining court, serve that ball, and take the point. Anybody think the magazine is right? Woodrow, what say you?