Multi-2-(2M)- why bid 2N rather then double?

In a previous post compelling reasons were given to play double as pass or correct and keep 2N as is. I agree with double and would play 3m is competitive with a good suit.

Follow-up after 2-(2)-X-(P) can be basically the same as after 2-(P)-2-(P) and after 2-(2)-X-(P) opener can show his hand in 3 or 4 steps rather then 2 because contract improvement is no longer an issue (in Kit’s uncontested structure 2-2;2N-3 is contract improvement).

What type of hand would want to bid 2N? Surely not if it is possible that they‘ve bid pards suit, so we need 4+ in M. Is there an advantage in bidding 2N with OM-support? A small advantage is that we take away their (unlikely) support-redouble in stead of the more dangerous double of 2N. Is there an advantage in bidding 2N with OM-support? Yes, we could bid 2N if we are unsure about the strain, so bad support. Can 2N be natural and inviting? No, inviting with 2N opposite a range of 3-9hcp cannot be right. Besides even Richard Fleet doesn#t sugges natural.

My suggestion for 2N: always length in M, not good support for OM, possibly length in a minor, then invitational, but too strong for 3m.

Openers rebids: 3/=minimum, p/c (responder can now bid 3OM or 3N, showing bad support); 3OM=maximum, good suit, 3N=maximum, bad suit, 3OM=?exposing psyche?

Did I miss something?