Jeff A: “He bid 2s intending it as gf.”

David B: “South was expecting the explanation ”game force“, because that's what he thought 2♠ meant.”

Sez who?

David B: “There may be some confusion over the meaning of this:

”South mistakenly bid 2♠ - which would have been the ‘values’ 4 card raise had there not been a Double.“

I don't know whether ‘values’ here means ”values for game“ or ”values for at least three“ (or even ”values for exactly three“). So the OP needs to clarify:”

The OP says “West asked about the alerted 2♠ bid and was told, correctly by the system, that it was a ‘fit jump’ - with invitational values only. ”

I'm missing the part where this is confusing.

Certainly there are other possibilities. I think 3♥ is bad, but not that bad. I was focusing on heart game because a) that's what you said and b) that would be the impetus for bidding 3♥.

“For each heart game I miss, I think I am probably avoid at least 2 minus scores.”

If instead of ‘avoiding minus scores’, you make it ‘avoiding having or increasing minus scores’ I'd put it at at least 10 to 1. That's how unlikely I think a heart game is (facing a partner who bid accurately).

“I guess I feel that a TO double is supposed to promise support for all the unbid suits and it would be a betrayal to double without such and no good plan for what to do when partner chooses a suit I'm supposed to have but don't.”

“Betrayal” is the sort of thinking I don't understand. You're simply a player doing your best with a hand that doesn't ‘fit’.
With a powerful hand and good hearts, I see the ‘money’ as involving hearts somehow.

With the West hand, my choices (assuming Kit's method has not been agreed) in order of preference are:

1) 2N - 2 places to play
2) Double and pass 3D (if partner has 2 places to play, we avoid D)
3) Double and bid 3H over 3D
4) 3C

With the East hand, I see the ‘money’ as passing 3C - likely the last chance to go plus (or avoid a big minus). Rather than trying for game in hearts with two opponents bidding, and a partner who did not try to bring hearts into the picture.

Richard is correct - I had actually forgotten that.

“and you might like to not be vulnerable.”
That part of your wish was actually granted.

When I saw the West hand, one of my first thoughts was ‘Hmmm, good for Kit’s method'. Of course, it's not a panacea. 1-3-4-5 facing 4-3-3-3 will (I think) see Kit reach 3♦ - where the ‘normal’ world gets to 3♣.
Kit will know better than I whether his method can have two-card discrepancy problems. I'm not sure how, as the hand over 2♠, he handles 2-5-3-3 shape. Say xx, Axxxx, AQx, AQx.

Very Old Standard is minors. Sensible Old Standard is ‘any two places’ (which, incredibly, I think is GCC illegal). Modern Expert Standard is ♥ + a minor.

Many play, and quite reasonably, that West's 3♣ is an OBAR bid (as termed by the WBF). Those playing that way might well prefer an action other than 3♣.
But, in any case, for East to bid 3♥ here feels like a stretch to me. What game are you aiming for? 3N when you're aceless with no help in clubs? 4♥ when partner chose 3♣ rather than double?
If ♥10 were ♥K you'd at least have the right strength. Meanwhile, I don't feel like guaranteeing a minus facing xx, Qx, xxx, AKQxxx - maybe a big minus if things go/break poorly.

Robert G: “If you didn’t cash the third heart you have an entry to the fifth club assuming 4-2 clubs. I’m constantly having to tell clients to set up new tricks.”

Except that you didn't “cash the the third heart”. You won the first heart. East won the second and returned a third. So, at least on the actual sequence, you have no “entry to the fifth club” via hearts.

I guess you could play on clubs instead of the second heart. But then the defense can duck a heart and you are cut off from the 3rd heart trick.
So continuing hearts, as was done, seems clearly correct. The defense might have done better to duck the second heart, win the third, amd play a club. However, it's possible this defense would ‘force’ declarer into a winning line.

Leonard: Who said anything about “over dummy's Qxx”? Declarer is North. I said East.

“OPs question is about a ”Brand new partnership “.

For a brand new partnership, 2N is a helluva lot more practical than 3♣ on the OP hand.

”With 5c♥-6c♥(presumably you meant ♦) and “not so goo (Freudian slip?) suits” a 1♥ response is available.“

Nice to know that with (say) A, Jxxxx, AKxxxx, x, 1♥ is ”available". However, I'll stick with 1♦.

Patrick L: “With QX opposite Ax (and vice-versa)the rightside is to receive the lead from the player who holds the King.Give us a coin!”

was waiting for somebody to ask.

There is conflicting negative info here. LHO didn't overcall 1♥. RHO didn't overcall 1♥ OR double 2♥. Of course somebody MIGHT overcall without the king - whereas I doubt RHO will ever double without it (the final contract might not be 3N).

Also, given that hearts is fairly ‘safe’ here (neither one of us really likely to have length), RHO might well double from a FOUR-card holding.

All in all, when you consider their KJxx facing 5-card, I think it's a little more likely that LHO has the K.

Still, one further issue. If you play from Qx and play low, it may be that they can win the K and defeat you by cashing 4 spade tricks - xxx, Qx, AKJxx, Kxx. Whereas, playing from the Ax, you can try ♥Q and fall back on the ♦ finesse.

So, when partner has Qx, the “coin” is weighted in favor of 2N - once 2♥ is not doubled.

“Why wrongside 3NT when bidding 2NT? For the moment just show the good ♣ suit.”

To keep 3♣ as ‘pure’ - 6(+)-card suit - helps with slam auctions. Partner already has to try to sort out if you are 4-2-1-6, 4-1-2-6, 4-3-0-6, 4-0-3-6, 4-1-1-7, 4-2-0-7 or 4-0-2-7. It's too much to add the burden of ANY of the more common shapes of 4-2-2-5 or 4-3-1-5.

3♥ can be used for SOMETHING - but not too much because it takes up so much space. No, the burden ‘should’, as usual, fall on the most economical bid.
And, here, it's intuitive to play that 2♠ can be EITHER 5-6 OR some awkward 4-5 hands. Which is why many experts do just that. Of course the details need to be worked out.

Btw, 3♥ over 1♠ as 5-6 GF is an EXCELLENT treatment. But it probably should be reserved for ‘5-6, good suits’. If you do it on EVERY 5-6 GF then, again, too big a burden on responder.

Looks like the “real life declarer” wasn't topnotch. Or he'd have won the ♣ lead in hand and played ♦K…

Michael H: I think all that is fair. If the argument is that 1♦ is ‘anti-field’, rather than “underbid” - I nave no quarrel with that - in fact I agree.
Responder can make slam opposite the ‘right’hand. Some play that 1N-4♠ ‘needs a perfecto’. Absent that, or some other method, it's a clear overbid. The semantic Ministry of Silly discussion I guess we can leave. But, before doing so, I'd point out that my “overbid” leaves more room for increasingly disparaging adjectives for even worse actions than your “silly”.

I think those advocating 1♦ are doing it mainly because they believe the hand is weaker than a 1N opening. I'm pretty sure they plan on raising 1M to 2M. I'm not saying whether I agree that it's a good idea in practice to open 1♦ in a ‘normal’ matchpoint field - but I do think that Kaplan-Rubens will almost certainly value this hand as less than 14.
You call the raise to 2M an “undebid”. But is it really that much more ov an underbid than a 1N opening is an overbid?

I also don't agree that 4N is “silly”. I do agree that it's an overbid. But mesh is everything. Facing (say) AQx, KJx, QJxx, Kxx - a flat 16 (admittedly, carefully constructed) - slam is close to ok. Make ♦x into ♦9 and slam is clearly good.
What responder would like is a route to 3N that says ‘I have a mild balanced ST’.

If you intend to play 2 rounds of spades, there is at least one advantage in preferring low to the Q. If you play low to K, you may run into a clever East who ducks with AJ109x, or the equivalent.

I win ♠K and return ♣J. Presumably you duck. I play another club.