in 1930's, milton work counted the number of times a picture card won a trick, in 1000 hands. divide by 100, and you had the original work point count. but they not convenient, so they were rounded off to the nearest integer, et voila. so nothing sacred about '1,2,3,4' unfortunately. useful at nt, but you have to learn to count tricks when evaluating a suit contract.
is a 1d response out of the question? if you must respond 1s, an immediate 3d with weak hand seems better to me- so long as it promises a balanced 6-8. save 2n for a hand with more stuffing, in case 3n is the game.
1n- 12-15, all 433,533,443 1s- 12-15, 6c suit, or 5 + another suit. 1h- as 1s 1d- as 1s/h, but either minor 2c- 12-15, all 444. 2d- 16+, all 444. 2h- good weak 2, 8-11. 2s- as 2h. 1c- all 16+, except 2d. a simple integrated system that works pretty well. 4c majors are masochism.
long suit is better than canape. you are more likely to want your long suit led, if opps seize the auction. if you open your long suit, there is much less to be gained from substandard response. and negative x loses its value, since opener will not know if 4 are opposite, or 3, or 1. canape was an attempt to solve a problem which the neg x solved much better.
1st: this is a system problem. in mine, 3c is a suit with h support, gf. 2nd: also a matter of system. in mine, 4d is single, at least 5 h's, 2+ key cards. how easy this is, if you organize your bidding.
3s should be an ace, eliciting 3n. 4c is an ace then 5h is big trump, go with d control. or, 4h hoping to hear 5d. i like the first, pd needs akq for this to be a good slam. may give up with 5 rags.
1nt, because you must harden your character when you use a 4 point range. it's worth it, in my view, especially if you are willing to clip off poor 12's.
"when pd makes a t-o x, i bid" edgar kaplan. i don't see how 5d can be bad, and this time it should get to 6d unless you've got a follow-up gadget, when 7.