Precision or Natural?

I have frequently had to address the question: which system is better, strong club (Precision derivatives) or natural? My response goes along these lines:

Natural bidding, especially 5-card majors has come a long way since the glorious days of the Blue Team. Although one can still argue that an uninterrupted strong club sequence will hit the jackpot more often, today's natural systems can virtually match that in most of the hands, the emphasis is on uninterrupted in the phrase before, a rarity.

After this fairly general paragraph, I break down my analysis further, by opening bids:

• 1 ♣: It limits other openings when strong but suffers from competition. Natural bidders show 2-3 clubs and perhaps gain some clarity in 1 D. So  they are even.
• 1 ♦: Depending on flavor, this can show any number of diamonds, even a void (I like to play it that way) in Precision. Natural has a big plus here, especially in competitive bidding.
• 1 M: This is the area where Precision-like systems shine. Frankly, whenever your partner opens the bidding with 1M and you're playing strong club, you happen to be the most comfortable person at the table.
• 1NT: Even; regardless of range.
• 2 ♣: Big club sucks, double plus for natural bidders. How natural systems utilize this bid is completely irrelevant. Precision 2 C has always been a hit or miss event, especially in pairs.

To sum up, we have two openings, 1 ♣ and 1NT which score even; two minuses, 1 ♦ and 2 ♣, and one (or two if you count the majors separately) plus as far as Precision is concerned. Sadly, most Precision flavors give it back when they adopt a standard raise structure, say, something like simple raise with 6-10, 3M with limit and the rest in forcing 1NT. So, although I like to play strong club, natural seems slightly better unless your major raises can handle thin but odds-on games frequently with a big club system.

3-Card Major Raises

Nearly all of bidding systems with 5-card majors prefer a delayed 3-card raise if responder has an invitational hand, typically 10-12 points. The most common route they follow is to bid 1NT first and then rebid 3M if possible. So, following auctions crop up time after time:

1 ♠ - 1NT
2 ♦ - 3 ♠

1 ♥ - 1NT
2 ♣ - 3 ♥

etc.

I can sympathize giving a belated 3-card raise but what I do not understand is why we delay it if partner's rebid will not change our own rebid in the first place. Depending on partner's second bid, following can happen:

• our hand improves,
• it gets worse,
• it does not change,
• we discover a new and better fit.

Interestingly, most of these systems advocate a single response: raise to 3M; 1M-1NT-2x-3M. Don't you think it is wasteful? Regardless of what opener says, we raise to 3. If you do not have a set of responses catering to all or at least some of the options above, then I think it is better to raise the major immediately, presumably using 3 of a minor or some similar mechanism. The competition will know less about opener's hand if nothing else. Advantage? Your 1NT response will not contain 3 cards in opener's suit. But  if you insist giving delayed 3-card raises, you might as well start thinking about how to improve your 1NT structure so that opener's rebid (and effort) really matters.