STANDARDS SECTION XVIII - TOURNAMENT STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE 3.  Doubles Appeal to Chair Umpire 4.  Number of Challenges Allowed 5.  Additional Challenge for Tie-Break Game 6.  Clear Communication to Umpire of Intent to Challenge 7.  No Electronic Review Decision Available 8.  Electronic Review in Lieu of Call from On-Court Officials a.  Reconfirm with the player her intent to challenge; b.  Confirm that the player has challenges remaining; and c.  Proceed with the Electronic Review. The original call or overrule always will stand if the Electronic Review is unable,  for whatever reason, to make a decision on that line call or overrule. In this  case, the player shall not have her available number of challenges reduced. If there is no call made from the on-court officials (unsighted Line Umpire, and  Chair Umpire cannot make the call) on a point-ending shot, the Chair Umpire  368 To challenge a line call or overrule, the player must show to the Chair Umpire  an immediate interest in making a challenge and must do so in a timely  manner. The player must make her intention to challenge known to the Chair  Umpire either verbally or visually (e.g., by using her racquet, arm, or hand). The Chair Umpire will: During the tie-break game in any set, each player (team) shall receive one  (1) additional challenge. This is in addition to any challenges not lost, if any,  during the set. Each player (team) shall receive three (3) incorrect challenges per set and one  (1) extra challenge in case of a tie-break. In doubles, when a ten (10) point  match tie-break is played in lieu of a final set, the number of challenges is reset  to three (3) at the beginning of the match tie-break. In doubles, the appealing player must make her appeal in such a way that  either play stops or the Chair Umpire stops play. If an appeal is made to  the Chair Umpire, then he/she must first determine that the correct appeal  procedure was followed. If it was not correct, or if it was late, then the Chair  Umpire may determine that the opposing team was hindered deliberately, in  which case the appealing team loses the point.