So the set is in a tourney, and an interesting situation came up, as the dealer (a new player) made the same mistake twice, but to me, as the situations were quite diffenerent, i argued that the practice used in the first situation should not be the same in the second situation. Here it goes:

a) 4 players to the flop. 1 player moves all-in and everybody calls. The dealer then forgets to burn a card and exposes "what should have been the burn card" as the turn card.
I ruled, that since it would influence the later action of the players still remaining in the pot - then the card should not be removed and be replaced by "the correct turn card". So we kept the card he wrongly put out (we kept the burn card as the turn card)

b) Later on, 2 players goes all-in pre-flop. Dealer puts out the flop correctly, but then again fails and forgets to use a burn card upon putting out the turn card. In this situation i ruled, that since no players were left to make any action - in this situation it would be better to replace it with the correct card. (we replaced the burn card with what would have been the turn card if it had been dealt out correctly)

The thing is, one player felt that it was unfair that the ruling was different (as the burn card that was exposed in situation 2 would have let him survive if we had kept it as the turn card like we did in situation 1),
but i felt that the since there were only two players (and no remaining action) - then the situation was very different, and the solution was better

Was this correct of me, or should i have done something else?

Only significant action could keep the card there, in situation #1. You stopped it before then, the burn card should have been burned and the correct turn card flipped over.

Why? Because the burn card is there for a reason- so no one can potentially see it (or marks on it) and have extra knowledge.

Have active players still in it doesn't make it a change in ruling.

same as turning over 4 cards on the flop.

Bad ruling on #1, good on 2. Larry summed it up well

Yeah, they are both the same situation, How many players are left to act shouldn't change the ruling.

Okay. So I should just have replaced it with the correct card and let it act as a burn can that everybody sees?

Then, hypothetically, if someone had made a bet before someone realized that the wrong card had been "turned over" - would that change the situation?

Yes.

here is the rule from Robert's Rules of Poker:

This RROP seems like a very good handbook - could someone link me to it or something like that?

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/rules.php

In casinos doesn't the exposed card go back in the deck and it is re-shuffled?

Not anywhere i have ever seen.

a prematurely exposed turn card could be, but not an exposed burn card. This is similar to a card flashed during the initial deal -- simply exposed for the whole table to know is dead.

The most current version is at Robert Ciaffone's own web site http://www.pokercoach.us/.

^ That link is in the FAQ, as well.

"I have also constructed a version of my rules that has been altered in a manner to make it appropriate for private games, Robert's Rules of Poker for home games. "

I'll have to eyeball this version, see where the differences are.

From this version:

No major changes.