[pran]

pilun, on 2019-November-28, 06:45, said:

If our 2♥ opening shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20,

what am I expected to announce?

In Norway you are expected to announce precisely the same information that you would have given in response to a question (for instance after an alert).

In your example you shall announce:
"shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20".

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-28, 08:45, said:

The zone which comprises the 20 other North American countries has a better claim to the name.

It depends on how you determine "better claim". if it's by the number of countries, you're obviously right. OTOH, US, Canada, and Mexico comprise 85% of the population of North America. It might even be a larger proportion of the bridge players.

So players in those other 20 countries might be better served by being part of a zone where they're not such outliers.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-28, 08:45, said:

The zone which comprises the 20 other North American countries has a better claim to the name.

Zone 5 has 13 NBOs, not 20.

[pilun]

pran, on 2019-November-28, 09:46, said:

In Norway you are expected to announce precisely the same information that you would have given in response to a question (for instance after an alert).

In your example you shall announce:
"shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20".

Thanks. I bring this up because I think that pairs who play a complex multi like this should be obliged to announce / explain the possible meanings in approximate order of likelihood. So it should not be acceptable to say

"shows either
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20
a weak 2♠,
21-22 bal
5-5 in ♦ & a major"

Do your Regs have a rider like that?

[hrothgar]

pilun, on 2019-November-28, 14:19, said:

Thanks. I bring this up because I think that pairs who play a complex multi like this should be obliged to announce / explain the possible meanings in approximate order of likelihood. So it should not be acceptable to say

"shows either
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20
a weak 2♠,
21-22 bal
5-5 in ♦ & a major"

Do your Regs have a rider like that?

I have never seen such a regulation, however, it seems like a reasonable suggestion

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-November-28, 09:46, said:

In Norway you are expected to announce precisely the same information that you would have given in response to a question (for instance after an alert).

In your example you shall announce:
"shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20".

All of this is announced? Bizarre. It seems that an alert would do nicely.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-November-28, 09:46, said:

In Norway you are expected to announce precisely the same information that you would have given in response to a question (for instance after an alert).

In your example you shall announce:
"shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20".

Vampyr, on 2019-November-29, 11:04, said:

All of this is announced? Bizarre. It seems that an alert would do nicely.

If that is indeed your agreement - yes.
And it does not matter if you use alert instead of announcements: The same (complete) information about your agreement must be given in response to a question after an alert.

BTW - if any of the many alternatives here may be weak (i.e. strength less than a King above average) while not promising at least 4 spades then the agreement will probably be classified as a brown sticker! (It certainly will in Norway)