[rogerclee]

Auto 4♥. It is too likely that our hands mesh well (ruffing my losing diamonds for example). Without any room to investigate, I will just push.

[kenrexford]

4♥ for me.

A couple of thoughts, though. You are using an approach that obviously includes a tendency canape rather than a pure canape. When partner is in the tweener range, my experience is that the systemic approach should include some catering toward card placement and pattern resolution, or tight definitional information. An agreement with no more meat than "limit" preempts Opener from that full description.

My guess is that the tendency canape has some parameter nuance, such as a tendency to use a canape with a weak hand, or with extra strength, but not either. If this is the case, then the systemic approach should cater to this reality in some manner.

As a simple example of what I mean, consider the difference in the hand if the fifth red card is in diamonds instead of in hearts. A fifth diamond reduces the value of partner's fourth heart for ruffing power, but covers in diamonds become more useful than external shortness. A small doubleton diamond with four trumps is great opposite this hand, but it is less valuable if you have five diamonds and four hearts.

A simplistic approach that I would use regularly, if no discussion occurred, would be to have a tendency to bid a forcing 1NT (is this forcing?) a lot to allow partner to develop his hand pattern before I, as responder, decide how to treat the hand. When I played canape, my practice was to define a jump raise as showing five-card support because of this, and other reasons. Now, I used a pure canape and not tendency canape, which affects things.

With a high-end tendency (canape if strong), one would expect a 2♦ rebid after a forcing 1NT, limiting the hand and establishing that the suit order was natural, which would allow partner to better evaluate his hand, knowing whether he was dealing with a nine-fit or not.

[jtfanclub]

No expert as always, but....

if my partner makes a limit raise, I pass.

Why?

Because everybody I know who plays limit raises also plays sound openers. So this only just qualifies as an opening.

With a limit raise shown with more modern methods (such as 1NT followed by 3♥, or a Begen 3♦), they'll expect looser openings, at which point my hand becomes stronger than the expected minimum.

[neilkaz]

4♥ gets a 6 from me and pass a 4 out of ten.

I'll bid the game, suspecting it to be about 45% red at IMPs. I have a 5th ♥ and good controls. Lets hope pd has something useful in ♦ or enough stuff in the blacks(hopefully not all offside) and ruffing values in ♦.

.. neilkaz ..