blackshoe, on 2012-April-05, 21:35, said:
To me it suggests that you say a minimum point count and a maximum point count, and not that you might add other information that has nothing to do with what the range is.
I'm not sure why it would suggest that to you. The only requirement is that you state a "range". There is nothing in that sentence to say that it has to be a range of high card strength.
When I wrote my earlier post, I was interpreting "range" as meaning "range of hand-types". However, I now see that the Orange Book defines the term "range" as "The agreed values shown by a call, generally expressed in HCP." It says "generally", so we're not obliged to use HCP. It says "values" rather than "high-card values", so we're not constrained to describing the high-card values only. If appropriate, we can state a range in terms of playing strength, or of combined high-card and distributional values.
I think, therefore, that "15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor" or "15-17 or equivalent playing strength" is clearly allowed, because it describes the range in terms of playing strength (and also because Max said so).
However, I've changed my mind about "14-16, or 12-16 with clubs" - this states a range of hand-types, not just of values, so on a strict interpretation of the rules it's incorrect. On a similarly strict interpretation, alerting also appears to be incorrect. But I would do one of these two anyway.