Apologies in advance for my limited acol experience.
How to put this- the best of bidding methods works well about 40% of
the time which translated means that outcomes are heavily couched in
judgment. For instance, when a method calls for opener to be more
robust to rebid a new suit minimally than the minimum promised for his
opening call then his method has closer to 25% efficacy.
Say with the given hand, if your partnership chooses one particular
fork [as in 2D] it might be termed a matter of style. While if the
partnership method is for opener to choose between the second suit
then it might be termed judgment. And judgment is a matter of skill.
For instance, to me the rebidding my suit or raising partner
communicates signoff- my honors are used up; but changing suits so as
to leave room to settle in an old suit does not promise additional
strength, yet does not deny it either. Thus changing suits suggests
fewer cards ‘available’ to support partner until further notice while
maximizing partnership flexibility in finding an appropriate strain.
Taking it further, rebidding 2D while suggesting not enough pieces to
raise spades doesn’t deny tolerance.
Keeping in mind that your otherwise biggest asset [partner’s cards] so
far is not fitting well [and thus the partnership value of the hand
has decreased], the way to improve the probabilities are more likely
to improve to find a fit by mentioning clubs- it being a matter of
judgment to go ‘against the probabilities’
To close I think that a bidding method that requires additional
strength to rebid 2C is not very intelligent; and the notion that
clubs can be mentioned later has dubious expectations seeing as how
responder necessarily first will have to show significant extra
strength which… while he might, he still might not.
regards