I don't think object should have an and.

>>> dir(object)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__dir__', '__doc__', '__eq__', '__format__', '__ge__', '__getattribute__', '__gt__', '__hash__', '__init__', '__init_subclass__', '__le__', '__lt__', '__ne__', '__new__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__setattr__', '__sizeof__', '__str__', '__subclasshook__']

I think, that for a & b we need to:

1. Call a.__and__(b) if defined.
2. Call b.__rand__(a) if defined.
3. Otherwise raise a TypeError.

Right now if object has __and__ implementation it will call it (for example objint), otherwise throws TypeError.
What you are suggesting is not to implement default __and__ at all? That means I would have to check if __and__ and __rand__ exist some other way, not sure how

You can use obj.has_attr("__and__") and modify the _and function in vm.rs. I mean to say that the logic for checking __and__ and __rand__ should be implemented in the vm, not in the methods themselves.

I added the discussed logic in for substraction: https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython/blob/master/vm/src/vm.rs#L380