Hi all:
I agree with the way that the cards were handled (preserving the turn upon which action has occurred, and using the covered card as the final burn).
With respect, I would generally not be inclined to suspend the betting because of an exposed card. I can sympathize with the argument that exposed cards could make a difference in the way that a hand might be played out, but that argument puts us on a slippery slope... it could happen with many types of irregularities, including prematurely exposing a turn/river card, not burning before the turn/river card is dealt or burning an extra card, even a player accidentally (or intentionally) exposing his cards, verbally or physically, late in the hand! I wouldn't feel comfortable suspending all betting for all players every time there was an exposed card late in the hand... it would just happen too often.
Also, we can only assume that exposing the card made a difference to the hand. It may not. In fact, I would hazard a guess that often, the exposing of that one card late in the hand would NOT affect the outcome of the hand more likely than not. We should also not assume that all players have made a hand at that point, which they wish to showdown. Therefore, by suspending the betting, you may also end up drastically changing the natural course of the hand anyways. You are essentially forcing a showdown of each player's hand with only four board cards showing. This means that, for example:
1) If a player had already called the turn on a draw, he is now forced to showdown a busted draw and lose all his bets if he misses, and he won't get paid off a cent if the draw does come in. If the pot is big, then this certainly would be unfair to the player, particular if the exposed card had no bearing on the hand whatsoever. I would almost rather return all bets for the hand in this scenario than suspend the betting.
2) If a player called the turn on a draw heavy board with the intention of shoving all-in if a scare card appears as a total bluff, he can no longer make the play, and again would be forced to showdown his junk, even when the exposed card had no bearing on the hand whatsoever.
3) If two people had already made strong hands but have been slow playing them (e.g. full house over full house on the flop), then the winning hand would not be entitled to make his final bet on the river and get called, even if the exposed turn card had no effect on the hands.
These are just a few examples. In general, I don't think it's fair to assume that every exposed card would have materially affected the way that the hand would have played out, and certainly not enough to suspend the betting entirely for all players, particularly in this case where all players have seen the exposed card and have had the same amount of time to consider the information before the final betting round (though the information may help some players more than others).
On the other hand, if somehow there has already been action on the final card and then another card gets exposed (i.e. at least one player did not have the benefit of seeing the card before acting), then in that case, I wouldn't object to giving the player who is at the disadvantage the option of declaring all-in for all bets (somewhat similar to a Stud situation where only one of two or more players get their final card dealt face-up accidentally and is at a disadvantage).
My two cents... K