Gambit wrote on 12/20/11 at 08:17:08:
See, Chevy, that's being unaware of the proper move order and theory. To answer your question, after 1 d4 Nf6 try 2 f3. This avoids the pesky Hubsch Gambit, which even I don't trust, and steers the game into the BDG after 2...d5 3 e4 dxe4 4 Nc3. Of course, you might have to be prepared to play against the Pirc Defense, 2 f3 d6 3 e4 g6, etc. or the Benoni, 2 f3 c5 3 d5.
Regarding the Lemberger Counter Gambit, there are several ways to play against it. After 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 e5, White can play 4 Nge2, the Rasmussen Attack, or 4 Nxe4, the Lange Gambit. Since the opponent cannot use a computer in OTB chess, you have good chances.
Grandmasters are conservative and don't like to take risks with the BDG. Nevertheless, IM and GM games with the BDG exist. Do your research.
I've done my research.

A lot of those IM and GM games occur by transposition, no? Probably the coolest thing is that Kasparov played a "BDG" (tempo up) once in a simul from the Trompovsky.
White has many ways against the Lemberger, and none are particulary inspiring to me. I have more ambition as White. It's not so difficult for Black to at least equalize.
I am aware of 2.f3, but I think it's kinda lame. 2.f3 d5 3.e4 c5 - BDG
denied. No way I'll go for an inferior French. I'm not huge fan of f3 systems in other openings anyway and this is a funny way of going about it. Well, I'll give you that it's much better than 1.f3. My position is that you'll have a lot of trouble convincing strong players to adopt 2.f3. I don't care what style you have - it just doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of logical development principles.