Does the doctrine of waiver apply when a party fails to object to a motion to disqualify a judge?

The need for an orderly and efficient administration of law and judicial economy as a basis for imposing the doctrine of waiver applies equally when a party's failure to object is not a deliberate effort to seek an advantageous [13 Cal.App.4th 1284] result secure in the knowledge that the party may avoid an unfavorable one by asserting error on appeal. Whether the failure to object is so calculated or not, the requirement of an objection to give the trial court an opportunity to correct error can avoid the necessity of further proceedings in the appellate courts and in the trial court if the error were sufficient to justify reversal of the judgment. (United States v. Indiviglio (2d Cir.1965) 352 F.2d 276, 280; cf. People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526, 820 P.2d 1036 [Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, which requires that review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge to a trial judge must be by petition for writ of mandate rather than by appeal from an ensuing judgment, " 'fosters judicial economy by eliminating the waste of time and money which inheres if the litigation is permitted to continue unabated, only to be vacated on appeal because the subsequent rulings and judgment were declared "void" by virtue of the erroneously denied disqualification motion' "].)