Hi,
If I am understanding you correctly, the three issues that you presented boil down to this one issue: When you split on aces or tens and then get 21, you still end up losing if the dealer gets blackjack. As far as we can tell, this is standard blackjack behavior. This is why we don't list this in the rules. Your hand and the dealer's hand only counts as a blackjack if the first two cards are 21. Once you have split your hand, you will have now played more than two cards.
Here is a quote from wikipedia: "As a general rule, a ten on a split ace (or vice versa) is not considered a natural blackjack and does not get any bonus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aces_and_eights_(blackjack)#SplittingIf you were to get 21 with three cards, and the dealer has blackjack, the dealer will win. Similarly, if you get blackjack and the dealer does not also have blackjack, you win no matter what since the best hand he could get would be 21 with three or more cards.
The relevant thing that we do list in the rules is "dealer does not peek". This means that if the dealer has blackjack, he does not immediately tell you. We could look into adding dealer peeking, but then we would need to change other rules in the dealer's favor to ensure that the house edge stays at 0.5% before progressive jackpot contributions.
Sites that offer dealer peek, don't offer push on doubles or splits vs. a blackjack
Sites that don't offer peek - push on doubles or splits vs. blackjack
How about you limit the number of splits on aces to make up the difference? Offering surrender or dealer peek would sure eliminate a lot of what looks like real unfair.
And considering not everyone plays progressive jackpots, I could care less if that was eliminated to help improve the fairness.
At minimum, progressive jackpots should only come from the btc people who play the progressive put into it.