Bill,
It sounds like you're in favor of "turning" the partially exposed card over for all to see...because it was RED? The fact that in a 10 handed game of hold'em, even after the flop, turn and river...more than half of the deck is unseen by anyone! Wow, I'm not quite as versed as many others, but maybe you can explain the odds on your opponent holding the only card in the deck that you could lose to. I'll bet you've lost more than your share in those situations, just like the rest of us.
As far as Robert's Rules; They are primarily for cash games. If we keep looking to Robert's Rules...why don't we adopt them? I very often do question why we are different on some rules.
Back to the original question. In my opinion, we can not start turning cards over just because a player might have caught a glimpse. The good news is; the action taken occurs before any wagering has taken place. The bad news is; unless the card is unquestionably exposed, revealing it's identity to the table, and replacing it with the burn card, could seriously alter the action and the eventual winner.
I remember, years ago, a rule that would allow the rightful owner of a card to refuse the card as long as he did not accept the card into his hand. "I saw that card, and I don't want it!" The obvious theory here was based on the fact that no player would refuse his proper card, unless he knew it's identity.