[bav]

Thanks to help from a friendly 2+2er who has access to the Bally's rulebook, I can report that I was wrong. And the Bally's floor people were wrong about being wrong.

I never got to sit down and browse the rulebook, but reading over someone's shoulder last night I did read the section on DEFECTIVE DECK and it says in that case the hand should have been unwound. But I didn't see the definition of "defective". Neither, apparently, did the couple floor people, because they were both agreeing with me by the end that the ruling was incorrect.

However, a 2+2er says he found in the rulebook that a missing card does not consistute a defective deck. And Robert's Rules agrees.

[ QUOTE ]
10. One or more cards missing from the deck does not invalidate the results of a hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still pissed the casino manager wouldn't talk to myself or the lady at the table who wanted her part of the pot back. But I can swallow that.

I actually feel a lot better that I was wrong and can reasonably just drop this. Like I said, it wasn't the money, it was the principle of the thing. And being wrong about it kinda makes it all go away.

Now I do find it odd that the high-hand jackpot payouts are not made if a deck is found to have 51 cards. That *IS* in the rules (I saw that one). Seems like either the deck is good enough and the hand plays, or the deck is bad and the hand doesn't play. It shouldn't be good enough to award the pot, but bad enough to skip the high-hand award.

I remain curious where the jack of hearts went. Bally's is even more curious, I'm sure. Folks were acting like this was a first for all of them. Most folks were guessing that it left with a player who took it intentionally as a souvenir. I imagine some poor schmuck in surveillance has been tasked with watching an hour of videos from midnight when the new deck was supposedly spread to 1am when this was discovered.