to the presence of alternate jurors in the jury room during deliberations ordinarily will not be considered to have waived the issue on appeal. But the cases referred to by the majority for the waiver of appellate review do not stand for the proposition that a party cannot agree to a procedure that differs from the Rule. Particularly egregious here is the fact that respondent agreed to the alternates sitting in the jury room, and participating if necessary, and only attempted to withdraw his consent when it became apparent that he was losing jurors that he considered favorable to his side. A party cannot acquiesce or agree to a procedure and then complain about the ruling when things appear to turn to his disadvantage. See Smith v. Gulf Oil Co., 995 F.2d 638, 645-46 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Cencer, 90 F.3d 1103,
holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations holding that although the trial court violated federal rule 47b waiver principles apply in the alternate juror context holding that equitable principles apply to child support proceedings holding that the late substitution of an alternate juror was not prejudicial to defendant because the district court had carefully instructed the alternate not to discuss the case before dismissing her and upon recall the alternate twice affirmed that she had complied with the courts instruction