Why not try the gambit : 2.e4 ,when I played 1.…f5 agaist 1.d4,I rather hate my opponent playing the 2.…e4
for I must get into a bad circumstances to defeance too long.
      And there is an funny idea for white to play 2.Nc3 3.e4 such as in Sicilian ,if e4 is under attack,take it after 3.Bg5.

What's the current status of 1 d4, f5 2 c4, d6/e6/g6/Nf6 3 Nc3?
One of my club members plays this a lot and he wins quite often with it.

I should mention that I like the idea of Nh6 (and Nf7) instead of Nf6 in the g6-line that Beetlejuice mentioned.

Well, I am definitely not an expert on the Dutch, I just happen to have bought an awful lot of books on it...

Probably you have played more games than I with 2. Bg5, but I'll try to give you some advice anyway.

Besides from what you mention, there is something to study about 2.- d6 and 2.- c6 as well. Summerscale has some analysis on them (but nothing on 2.- d5).

You should decide on 4. e3 or 4. e4 after 2.- h6. 3. Bh4 g5. On 4. e4, Summerscale has a lot to say, and so has Williams and Pinsky (but not Beim). To me the lines after 4. e3 are not impressive - 4. e4 looks much more interesting, but also more risky. Should you stick to 4. e3 anyway, then there is nothing to get from Summerscale neither from Beim, but both Williams and Pinsky has a lot.

On 2.- g6, there is a lot to get from Pedersen's book.

On other answers than 2.- h6 and 2.- g6 it is only Summerscale that has anything to offer, since the others are Black rep. books recommending h6 or g6.

I don't know how much you want to spend on book about this topic, but this may give you an idea on where to throw the money.

Returning to the initial question about 2. Bg5. Summerscale's book deals with 2. Bg5 from a white point of view (as alumbrado writes), while a number of black repertoire books see it from the other side, among these are Understanding the Leningrad Dutch by Beim, Play the Classical Dutch by Williams, Classical Dutch by Pinski and The Dutch for the Attacking Player by Pedersen (a Leningrad book). I don't know the other sources as e.g. the new Starting out... or Bellin's older but highly acclaimed book.

Here's brief confrontation between Summerscale and the black repertoire books mentioned.

Beim, Williams and Pinsky all recommend 2.- h6, and the critical variation seems to be 3. Bh4 g5. 4. e4 (the move preferred by Summerscale, 4. e3 and 4. Bg3 do not give black serious problems according to all sources) Nf6. 5. e5 e6. 6. exf6 Qxf6. 7. Bg4 f4. 8. Bd3 (this is not mentioned by Summerscale who plays 8. Nf3 Nc6. 9. c3 b6. 10. Bb5 Bb7. 11. Bxc6 dxc6. 12. Nbd2 with an edge for white, but Williams and Pinsky deviate with 9.- d6. 10. Nbd2 Bd7. 11. Ne4 Qe7. 12. Bxf4 gxf4 with an equal game for black) Nc6. 9. Qh5+ Kd8. 10 c3 d5. 11. Nf3 Bd7. 12. 0-0 Bd6. 13. Nbd2 Ke7. 14. Rae1 Rag8. Pinsky thinks black is OK here, while Williams gives white the advantage after 15. Nb3. I think Williams is closest to the truth, but the position is very unclear.

Pedersen recommends 2.- g6 and the critical line is 3. Nd2 d5. 4. e4 fxe4. 5. Nxe4 d5. 6. Nc5 b6. 7. Nb3 Nf6. 8. Nf3 0-0. 9. Be2 Qd6 (in Pedersen's book, Summerscale only considers 9.- Ne4). 10. 0-0 Nbd7. 11. Qc1 e5. 12. dxe5 Nxe5. 13. Bf4 Nfg4 "gives rise to a level position" (Pedersen).

I think the positions arising from 2. Bg5 are generally quite dynamic and unusual. The line is fully playable and most likely leads to positions much different from what a Dutch player is used to. I have tried it a few times with mixed results (the first time I lost with white in 12 moves  , but that was not because of 2.- Bg5).

It could be interesting to hear which comments the Dutch experts of this forum have on the 2. Bg5 variation.

2.g3! +=

It´s no gambit. And aggressive! Don´t look at the positions at move 5, look at move 15 !

tracke  

Pedersen also wrote a very good book 'The Dutch for the Attacking Player' and since he was the one with responsibility for choosing a line against the Dutch in 'Beating the Indian Defences' I assume he thought it was a good weapon.

Another interesting point might be the fact that most of that book is based on main lines (Bayonet Attack V KID, 4.Qc2 v Nimzo etc).  The fact that Pedersen chose 2.Nc3 against his favourite Dutch probably means that he thinks there is more chance of gaining an edge than in the mainlines.

2.Nc3 would be my choice.  Palliser recommends this in his book 'Play 1.d4'

Burgess and Pedersen also recommend it in their book 'Beating the Indian Defences'