"Even if we tell 1.d4 e6 is logical since u play french and white could tranpose into it, i noticed that it almost never happen..."
Actually it has happened to me quite a few times, at least playing live chess on the internet.
Also, black avoids the Trompowsky, which can be annoying. At least it was to me the one time I faced it in a longer time control game, as I never ever looked at it.
old benoni , 1 d4 c5 , or modern benoni 1 d4 nf6 c4 c5 (g6 optional but tells opponent where your bishop is going )
@OP, if you really are looking for an opening because white avoids the Benko, you have the option of the Blumenfeld Gambit which is similar to Benko in some ways.
ThrillerFan makes a good point that even though black has a similar pawn structure in the French and QGD, it's a completely different position.
The French is in a way a straightforward system, and if white wants to avoid it by playing 1. d4 and then even refusing to follow up with 2. c4 (what an atrocity!) I fear the OP is stuck in a long strategic game where there simply is not any similar "French style" setup.
Myself I play the French almost exclusively against 1. e4, and I have picked up the Queen's Indian as my main weapon against 1.d4 instead of the QGD. It's very flexible and solid, with both ...d5 and ...c5 available at a good moment. It isn't the same as the French at all, but you could give it a try. And at least you have a familiar pawn on e6, feels comfortable...
Have been working on slav defense. Try slav its solid and maybe you will like it
ThrillerFan makes a good point that even though black has a similar pawn structure in the French and QGD, it's a completely different position.
The French is in a way a straightforward system, and if white wants to avoid it by playing 1. d4 and then even refusing to follow up with 2. c4 (what an atrocity!) I fear the OP is stuck in a long strategic game where there simply is not any similar "French style" setup.
Myself I play the French almost exclusively against 1. e4, and I have picked up the Queen's Indian as my main weapon against 1.d4 instead of the QGD. It's very flexible and solid, with both ...d5 and ...c5 available at a good moment. It isn't the same as the French at all, but you could give it a try. And at least you have a familiar pawn on e6, feels comfortable...
Problem with the Queen's Indian is you need something else as well. The Queen's Indian only works against 3.Nf3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 and now:
A) 3.g3 is the Catalan, you need a line for it
B) 3.Nf3 Black only has time to play 3...b6 because White's 3rd move does nothing to threaten e4.
C) 3.Nc3 and now 3...b6? is simply a bad move, and clearly shows that Black is strictly playing the move like a robot, and has no idea what he's doing. 3.Nc3 threatens to play 4.e4, which is very good for White. Black needs to stop that with 3...Bb4 or 3...d5, or else contest the d4-square with 3...c5, transposing to a Modern Benoni if White plays 4.d5 and an Anti-Benoni if White plays 4.Nf3.
NOTE that in the English Defense, 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.e4 Bb7, where White allows e4, note that there is a major difference. Black has not plopped his Knight on f6, and therefore makes f5 possible. 4.Nc3 is usually answered by 4...Bb4 and 4.Bd3 is often answered by 4...f5, but Black can also answer 4...Nc6 intending 5...Nb4 and trading Knight for Bishop. That said, ...f5 is still in the cards. With 1...Nf6 included in there, this strategy is a complete mistake!
So if you are going to play the QID, you'll also need the Catalan and a line against 3.Nc3, either the QGD, Nimzo-Indian, or Modern Benoni.
You are quite right, ThrillerFan, it's not always you get to play the QID, and of course it isn't a universal setup against all whites opening choices. What I should have written is that I employ it when I get the opportunity. As far as the OP is concerned, am I correct that there simply isn't a corresponding system that is "French like" for black when white plays a Queen's pawn game without an early c4? Some posters have advocated KID, but that wouldn't work here (even though the similarities between the French and the KID strikes me as highly superficial).
I play e6 against both d4 and e4 and either go into the french or stonewall dutch. l like to play solid positions so the stonewall suits my style.
The similarities between any e-pawn opening and any d-pawn opening are going to be superficial, whether c4 is played or not. The similarity with KID is as good as it gets. 1.d4 e6 gives the possibility of actually tranposing.
You are quite right, ThrillerFan, it's not always you get to play the QID, and of course it isn't a universal setup against all whites opening choices. What I should have written is that I employ it when I get the opportunity. As far as the OP is concerned, am I correct that there simply isn't a corresponding system that is "French like" for black when white plays a Queen's pawn game without an early c4? Some posters have advocated KID, but that wouldn't work here (even though the similarities between the French and the KID strikes me as highly superficial).
Well, you can't say that any QP opening is EXACTLY like any KP opening. If White doesn't play 2.c4, and you proceed to play a KID setup (which is legitimate in this case, unlike some other Black defenses), then yes, you might get a few unique positions.
It's just like in the French. Not all positions are the same. The center is often blocked, but what if White plays the Exchange Variation?
If the King's Indian is the Advance French, the London System is the Exchange Variation! (Not saying the two are the same, but it's the "draw line" for White.)
Actually I disagree with ThrillerFan last post.
In the KID there is the Exchange Variation which I think is pretty draw-ish.
Out of like 100 games I see it maybe 3 times.
It doesn't get played as much as other exchange lines.
Which is pretty funny.
I think people often forget about the Exchange Variation.
I think its due to the fact so many lines can be played against the KID.
If black is that bothered about the exchange variation can play nb-d7 then e5. Strategically though white has a weak square on d4, and black can cover d5 with c6. So if white plays passively will be in trouble. Software evalautes 7dexe5 highly because likes open lines.
I am another 1....e6 vs. everything player, going into the French or the Stonewall Dutch. I feel they share the blocked center and focus on pawn levers on the flanks. As I dislike open centers, this works for me. 1...e6 also avoids things like the Staunton or 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 lines.
I did have two tournament games (against the same opponent) that went 1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g4. So 1...e6 is not immune to weird gambits. On the other hand, I did okay in the first game and should have won the second (only drew it)--versus a master--so this gambit is not so scary. Mainly shock value, plus he liked avoiding the opponent's preparation. (I asked him, and yes, he always played like that vs. the Dutch--it wasn't just for me.)
If black is that bothered about the exchange variation can play nb-d7 then e5. Strategically though white has a weak square on d4, and black can cover d5 with c6. So if white plays passively will be in trouble. Software evalautes 7dexe5 highly because likes open lines.
I don't think black minds playing the Exchange Variation.
However, I also think white wouldn't mind it either.
I was just making a point that the London System is not the draw-ish line which Thriller Fan trys to advocate it to be.
I play e6 against both d4 and e4 and either go into the french or stonewall dutch. l like to play solid positions so the stonewall suits my style.
I read somewhere that the "style" just shows up the weaknesses of a player, and that instead a good player doesnt have a style and plays the way the position needs to be played. For example, in an attacking way or maybe instead in a more quiet game trying to get into an endgame with a pawn plus and better structure.
Still I think even Carslen has a style, and that it would be inhumane to not have one, so ignore my comment lol
Everybody has a "preferred style" of play.
For me, it's more your "Free Thinker, Positional Type Game", for example, what you get from Openings like the Old Indian Defense. Not wild and crazy like the Modern Benoni, and not stagnant like the Orthodox QGD.
That said, the difference between Carlsen, Myself, and most Experts/Masters is that while we each have a "preferred" style, we will play the position. If it calls for Wild Tactics, that's what goes on. We play the best move, regardless of the effects.
A weak chess player, which includes the vast majority of those under 2000, and probably about 50% of players from 2000 to 2200, and another 25% of players from 2200 to 2400, is one that feels he or she must force the position into their own style, despite the fact that the moves they are using to do it are weak.
A prime example is in the English Opening. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6. As a rule of thumb, ...Nc6 should always be answered by Nc3, even if you "prefer" the "c4, g3, Bg2, Nc3" moves against "anything". Problem is, after 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2?!, Black has 3...f5 4.Nc3 Nf6! with complete equality!
Instead, White must be willing to adjust, and play 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc3 3.Nc3! f5 4.Nf3! Nf6 5.d4! e4 and now, with no Bishop on g2, 6.Nh4! is possible! The idea now is White will develop the LSB to either e2 or d3, entice g5 from Black, retreat the Knight to g2, and then play h4, loosening Black's grip on g5, and if Black takes or advances, White has a VERY STRONG outpost for the Knight on f4!
Another prime example is players that play "Systems" with 1.d4. You can play them and actually play for an advantage, but you need to know when to use them. The Torre is not a catch-all opening. It works against 1...Nf6/2...g6 or 1...Nf6/2...e6. Against 1...Nf6/2...d5, it's dubious because of 3...Ne4! White should instead play 3.e3, 3.Bf4, or 3.c4.
The Colle is ineffective against Fianchetto Defenses. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6, 3.e3 is nothing for White. White should play the Bishop out to f4 or g5 (g5 is the stronger option here).
The Veresov, 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5, sometimes White must be willing to transpose to a King Pawn Opening. For example, after 3...e6, best is 4.e4, transposing to a French. Once again, forcing his own style with moves like 4.e3 or 4.Nf3 are once again nothing for White.
There's at least a few of the major differences from the perspective of "style".
@AntonioAg
In your diagram game on post #39.
I would prefer black's position in that game as well.
The reason why is because the move 9.0-0 is an inaccuracy.
The theoritical move for white is 9.Bg5 by far.
or
The move 9.Nd5 has been tryed from time to time.
If white plays correctly with 9.Bg5 than the game can become interesting.
Both sides would have equal chances to win or draw.
Never underestimate the exchange variation of the KID.
It demands respect!
I have played the black side of it many times and I have suffered wonderful victorys and some terrible defeats lol.
The main reason I do not like playing the KID any more is because of 3 lines which I find are very annoying.
The Fianchetto Variation
The Smyslov Variation
The Gligoric-Taimanov System
Boris Gulko who I believe is a KID genus is a Grand Master who has used the Smyslov Variation with devestating effect.
In fact, I believe he has advocated that black not even play in normal KID fashion against it.
They often have to play a c5 pawn break instead of the normal e5 pawn break which tranposes the KID into more of a Benoni position.
Incase you don't know who Boris Gulko is.
He is the Grand Master who has a plus record against Garry Kasparov (+3−1=4)
One of the only chess players in history to have won the Russian Chess Championship and the USA Chess Championship.
Yeah I play the Grunfeld now and I am happy 
exchange variation on KID is a bit like exchange variation on french defence : black just smiles and knows life will be easy...
Its not drawish, it is just a concession in my opinion...
When i played the french, i had almost 100% win against exchange variation, nearly the same with exchange var on KID.
Don't fear "drawish mode", players who lose centre advantage by exchanging usually just are the one who are afraid, want to simplify, but go into passivity and defeat.
Well I have looked at the Dutch before and even bought and watched the Simon Williams video. I had some losses because I did not know what to do with all the pieces. So I went back to the Benko Gambit.
The problem I have had with that is my opponents would not let me play that and we would end up in a different Queen pawn opening.
I want something more forcing to the opening I want.
Well last night I watched the first of 5 videos by Simon Williams on the Dutch here on Chess.com. I expected it to be the same as the DVD.
Simon actually addressed not moving the Queenside Knight and Bishop early at all. vWith this and other things he added, he is telling us how to play the opening more completely.
I still have some downloaded material for the Slav and even Chigorin. But for now, I am going to the more aggressive Dutch.