[gszes]

 sfi, on 2019-June-25, 05:41, said:

This looks about right. The agreement that 1NT - 2C; 2D - 2H shows a weak hand with both majors is a good one to have.

I am pretty sure cybers sequence does NOT show both majors. His decision to go this route is based on the concept that w/o at least a 9 card fit game is unlikely so he is choosing to exit as quickly
as possible. The 2h bid merely asks opener to pass if they hold 3 hearts or bid 2s (hoping opener did not open 1n with 2245 hand). Responder's hand using this system could be something like xxx xxxx x xxxxx and using stayman with the hope of improving the contract from a doomed 1n. Using stayman this way essentially gives up on showing game potential with hands like the one posted for this problem (unless a 9 card fit is found).

[sfi]

 gszes, on 2019-July-09, 09:25, said:

I am pretty sure cybers sequence does NOT show both majors. His decision to go this route is based on the concept that w/o at least a 9 card fit game is unlikely so he is choosing to exit as quickly
as possible. The 2h bid merely asks opener to pass if they hold 3 hearts or bid 2s (hoping opener did not open 1n with 2245 hand). Responder's hand using this system could be something like xxx xxxx x xxxxx and using stayman with the hope of improving the contract from a doomed 1n. Using stayman this way essentially gives up on showing game potential with hands like the one posted for this problem (unless a 9 card fit is found).

I don't see a functional difference between my interpretation (which he endorses, if you read his reply to mine) and yours. If you choose to bid this way with the hand you give, that's fine. But you are offering partner a choice between the majors.

It doesn't even have to give up on showing game. You could have a specialised bid to show invitational with 5/5 in the majors (I've used 3D over a 2D response for that) or simply bid 2S (invitational with 5 spades) and then pull a 2NT signoff to 3H.