[blml] L55A ambiguity?

[Guthrie]

[TNLB L55A]
If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either 
defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its
retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders 
choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn 
shall prevail.

[Robert Geller]
Let's take a concrete example.  South is the declarer, and he has the 
lead, but he calls for a card from dummy (North).   East says he wants 
to accept the LOOT, but West says he wants to refuse it ... My 
question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" 
specified in L55A?

[Sven Pran]
I believe this alleged ambiguity is resolved by looking at Law 53A?

[TNLB 53A]
"next in rotation to the irregular lead."

[Robert Geller]
If this is what the WBFLC meant in 55A also, then why didn't they also 
say this in L55A instead of just "next in turn" without adding "to the 
irregular lead"?

[Steve Willner]
The Law is irretrievably ambiguous.  If you are asking in your 
capacity as translator, I'm afraid you will have to find a way to keep 
the ambiguity in your translation.  If you are asking how a TD should 
rule  at the table, I think Sven has correctly stated the intent, but 
unless  there's an official interpretation, we have no way to be certain.

[Nige1]
Once more, most players will be kept ignorant of the law-maker's 
intentions, until c. 2017, when the relevant text in the law-book is 
corrected. I reckon, however, that Sven is probably right.

Rather than attempt to translate perplexing but apparently meaningless 
phrases, would it be better to omit them altogether? :)