Yes
Is that any different then a dead button in seat 3, seat 2 is last action both ways and my way or the TDA way the new player is in the worst position, including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice(or three times)
buy the TDA saying taking a single big blind even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice
tells me you do not have to have a seat reserved for the small blind
I don’t see any other way to interpret the rule
Thanks for the clarification. As I understand it, according to the rule as you interpret it, whenever the button is in seat 2 and seat 3 is empty, you will seat the new player in seat 3 regardless of what other seats at the table might be vacant. And if on the next hand seat 3 busts, you will seat the next new player
again in seat 3, and seat 2 gets the button
again. And theoretically, this could happen two, three, or four or even more times in a row, and
every single time, the new player will sit in seat 3, and the button stays in seat 2.
Here are the reasons I don't prefer this method:
1. The button can potentially stall in one particular seat and with one particular player. The potential for this to happen is not as rare as one might think. In my experience, at late stages of certain tournaments where everyone is very short-stacked, the BB tends to gets eliminated a lot. Tables can get very short and may be forced to hold until a players is brought in to balance them; or in smaller venues, it might not take long to move a player from one table to another. So, if the BB keeps getting eliminated, and if we always place a new player in the same seat, the button will remain with the same player over and over again. Even if we no longer use a moving button movement, to me, I don't think it's fair to have the button stalled in one seat.
2. If the intention of the rule is to place a new player in the way you describe, then in my view, the rule should say that the new player "shall take the next vacant seat after the button" and may post a single BB if there are no intervening players between him and the button. This would be a lot clearer than the vague phrase "worst position at the table".
3. TDA rules also clearly say that tournaments will use a "dead button". In a dead button movement, "The big blind is posted by the player due for it, and
the small blind and button
are positioned accordingly, even if this means the small blind or the button is placed in front of an empty seat..." (RROP s.16.1). If the new player in seat 3 is considered to be the BB,
then the SB must be positioned accordingly. Clearly, seat 2 is not going to be the SB here, after already having posted it. I disagree that the TDA rule saying "including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice" necessarily means that you do not have to have a seat reserved for the small blind. There is no reason why the balancing rule should take precedence over the dead button rule. If the balancing rule was meant to override the dead button rule, the rule should say so explicitly.
4. Finally, there are still many scenarios where the highlighted wording in the balancing rule comes into play, but the properties of a dead button rotation are still preserved. Most involve situations where there is at least one existing vacant seat before the player who busts out. For example:
Seat 1 (occupied)
Seat 2 (occupied-button)
Seat 3 (occupied- SB)
Seat 4 (vacant)
Seat 5 (occupied- BB)
Seat 6 (occupied)
Seat 7 (occupied)
Seat 8 (occupied)
Now, the player in seat 5 busts. I have absolutely no problem with placing a new player into seat 5 in this situation when balancing, and thus seat 5 will indeed "have the big blind twice". The button has moved to seat 3, and seat 4 will host the "dead" SB. Therefore, the button continues to move around the table without stalling, the properties of a dead button rotation are satisfied with the SB in front of an empty seat, and the new player indeed "takes a single BB with the same seat having had the big blind twice", thus satisfying the rule.
In my opinion, the "worst position" in the balancing rule should never be one which would result in there not being a seat reserved for the small blind. Seating a new player immediately after the button without the SB being in front of a seat might be the "progressive" way, but not the optimal way, in my view.