No, because that is not a Mask. The Mask is defined so that if you AND the address and the mask, the network bits will always remain as is, and the host bits are all 0's.
For example if we AND together the IP and the MASK, we get this:
00110010 00101010 11100011 10101010
11111111 11111111 00000000 00000000
00110010 00101010 00000000 00000000
A non-contigious mask as you suggest could not do that. Here is an interesting document on the binary nature of IP addresses/masks.
The value you suggest could be used as a Pattern for matching specific IP addresses, when the mask is applied, but as it would essentially ignore the second octet of ANY IP address that it attempted to process, routers and other devices would not be able to determine the network address correctly, and thus could not deliver the traffic as expected.
Note that the binary AND operation and the nature of the mask itself was designed to be calculated in hardware with a single operation over a pair of registers, and an AND is about as basic as logical operations come.
Not sure why the downvote, but I would point out that per RFC 1519 (CIDR), Masks must be contigious to the left:
An implementation following these rules should also be generalized,
so that an arbitrary network number and mask are accepted for all
routing destinations. The only outstanding constraint is that the
mask must be left contiguous.
The only case in which an address might use non-contigious masking is (per RFC 950):
- Classful Subnetting is in use
- The "odd" bits must occur in the final octet of the mask that is meaningful (eg 255.255.88.0, 255.255.255.88)
Since the bits that identify the subnet are specified by a
bitmask, they need not be adjacent in the address. However, we
recommend that the subnet bits be contiguous and located as the
most significant bits of the local address.