It’s certainly true that “used to” often implies “but no longer” but it’s more of a pragmatic consequence than a semantic rule. “Used to” can only refer to the past, and why would you use a construction that only refers to the past if the thing is still true?
If someone came up to me and said: “I used to play tennis with Bill at high school.”, I would conclude they no longer do.
But now suppose you asked someone: “Did you play tennis when you were at high school?” And they answered: “I used to play it with Bill”.
In that case I would not conclude they no longer do.
They might elaborate by answering: “I used to play it, and I still do”.
But this is a type of instance, where we are clearly talking about the past and the information about the present is a kind of afterthought, is the only one where I can imagine using “used to” with “and still” rather than “but no longer”.
Ordinarily, you would elide the past and present by saying: “I’ve always liked playing tennis with Bill”.
However, these are only speculations and you might easily disregard them, beachboy.
