Queen's gambit declined.
Tartakower.
And after a year, if you're comfortable with it, then you can consider a Nimzo Indian / Queen's Indian thing. QGD is not a novice opening, it's regularly played at the super GM level, and it's a logical place to start.
But also, it's fundamental, and it's useful to start here before branching out to hypermodern things like KID.
Nobody gives two hoots what you love! An answer only an imbecile would give! I refuse to play the London System as White. Does that mean I should give advice to him based on a negative view of the London System? No! You answer based on their question, not your own style of play.
Back to what the OP is asking, a lot depends on how he handles the French and the London. For example, does he plays the London System blindly, saying "I'm going to play 1.d4, 2.Bf4, 3.e3, 4.Nf3, 5.h3, regardless of what Black does? (Stupid if you ask me, but possible.) Or does he play the London System as a legitimate opening, realizing that move order matters, and that in certain lines, c4 has to be played to get anything and that c3 is not "automatic".
With the French, does he play the Open Tarrasch (3...c5) or Closed Tarrasch (3...Nf6)? Winawer (3...Bb4) or Classical (3...Nf6) against 3.Nc3?
The answers to these questions would help answer:
If you take the lazy route where you blindly play the first 5 to 10 moves and ignore what Black's doing, and only pay attention to what Black is doing and not White in the French, then a lazy opening with the same response to all lines may be best for you, but I would never condone it. This would be something like the Modern Defense (1...g6 against every except 1.b3 or 1.b4) or Sniper (1...g6, 2...Bg7, and 3...c5 again virtually anything).
If you are using the London as a serious opening, and play the more theoretical lines of the French like the Winawer and Closed Tarrasch or Open Tarrasch with 4...Qxd5, then a highly theoretical opening like the Slav or Semi-Slav would be more up your alley. The London System and the Colle System are, in essence, a Slav and a Semi-Slav in reverse.
If you prefer more of a conceptual repertoire, like the Open Tarrasch with 4...exd5, then the Orthodox QGD would be recommended.
Although masters say you should select your openings based on your personality, I believe that it is too early to limit your opening. I suggest getting a feel for openings by playing and viewing them and not worrying about opening play, except to learn good opening principles and practice them. At the class level, games are won by tactics. Alot of experts I played told me that thry did not even know the opening variation we were playing. They sac pieces and I was lost. A lot more to study than openings.
Although masters say you should select your openings based on your personality, I believe that it is too early to limit your opening. I suggest getting a feel for openings by playing and viewing them and not worrying about opening play, except to learn good opening principles and practice them. At the class level, games are won by tactics. Alot of experts I played told me that thry did not even know the opening variation we were playing. They sac pieces and I was lost. A lot more to study than openings.
Any master who tells a new (or new-ish) player to select openings based on personality (or style) is a bad teacher.
GM Yeromlinski is one of them. The poster's question was about choosing an opening that fits his personality.
GM Yeromlinski is one of them. The poster's question was about choosing an opening that fits his personality.
If he's saying it to new-ish players (meaning a rating near beginner) then he's a bad teacher... and since it's typical of beginners (not just in chess, in anything) to ask poor questions, a bad teacher may purposefully say these things to help sell more materials to newbies.
Try many different things and stick to what works for you.
Thanks to all who responded earnestly.
I do not play the London on autopilot (any more). I think the reason why I am gravitating towards the London and French is that the lines of attack seem to be more evident for me (although it does bug me to trap-in my white bishop in the French) and I play them more naturally (although I still need a great deal more work on each).
I do understand that at my level, it is more about tactics than any opening and do work tactics as often as I can. At 51, I'm just trying to study everything I can from Tactics, Endgames, and yes...openings.
Upon some of your suggestions, I've started looking at the QGD and the Slav. Thanks!
PawnstormPossie...Worth a watch. Thanks.
One of the main reasons I decided to pay $99 a year was to have access to the videos anyway...as well as many of the other benefits. Thanks!
it's a good opening, but i feel like it's not a great choice for beginner players, the price of every move is high and there's a lot of theory, whereas beginners should focus on strategy and endgames
i remember a funny but somewhat truthful post saying that only 2300+ players should play the catalan
I've been trying to learn the Benko for the last couple of months. Nobody, either OTB or online, has yet given me the opportunity to play it. That's the trouble with opening repertoires at the lower levels.
I've been trying to learn the Benko for the last couple of months. Nobody, either OTB or online, has yet given me the opportunity to play it. That's the trouble with opening repertoires at the lower levels.
No, that's the trouble with openings that require something very specific by your opponent. There are openings that are less reliant on the opponent cooperating. You do need to know the differences though.
Openings like the Benko Gambit or Budapest depend on White playing something specific. You play 1.d4 Nf6 and White plays 2.Nf3, kiss the Budapest good-bye! Same with the Benko Gambit!
After 2.c4, the Budapest is possible, but the Benko can still be avoided. After 2...c5, 3.Nf3 is now an Anti-Benoni.
There are other QP openings that are more flexible. Take the King's Indian. Pretty much playable against anything but 1.e4, but you need to understand that the London System, main line Mar Del Plata, lines with d4, c4, and e3, the Saemisch, and lines without d4, like English and Reti positions, require different subsequent reactions by Black beyond the opening, but all allow a KID structure by black.
Same can be said for the QGD setup. Against the English, e6 has to be played before d5, but that is simply a switch in move order. With the QGD setup, you need to understand the QGD proper, exchange lines, Catalan, London/Colle setups, Reti, etc.
That said, the setup by Black in openings like the KID and QGD are pretty much playable against anything that is not 1.e4. Others like the Benko, Budapest, etc, require a completely different approach when White fails to comply.
You cold try Queen's Indian and Nimzo-Indian.
Well, you sound like me 2 years ago. I took (at least on a superficial level) what seems like a similar road to what you took. I'm going to explain my transitions a bit, and by doing so, might be able to help you out in a selection.
*Early on I realized I hated 1. e4. I didn't like how pieces seemed to just fly off the board. I didn't like how the central files would often be wide open (I learned that I preferred closed games, locked centers and/or some semi-open files). It gave me a better feeling of being in control. So I switched to 1. d4
* Another thing I hated was getting hoodwinked early on. Or taken immediately out of book by some weird defense gambit which every NM says is "immediately losing for black" while not remembering that it’s actually hard for lower level players to punish these "bad moves." So I settled on London system. It felt "intuitive."
In reality, what that meant (to me anyway) was that you were guaranteed a playable middle game—despite inaccuracies or despite weird defenses. I felt in control.
(And perhaps I also liked that attacking is also super basic in that system [at least if the opponent did me a favor and castled kingside :p ]).
* I tried Slav and Caro as black because it was supposed to be “like the London.” But of course I hated playing them as the lines were a lot more complex. In tons of lines, your bishop never comes outside the pawn chain. It wasn’t “intuitive” in the same way the London was.
*From there I migrated to King’s Indian or Modern defenses. Generally defenses with a more static center, and “intuitive” initial development. It was a good learning experience. It was nice to not be bamboozled in the first 6 moves.
At this point in my chess I was actually starting to improve, I think. I also realized that I couldn’t time a freeing pawn break in the center for the life of me (still can’t lol), and that I needed to switch to a more classical center.
Thus, I found the French defense and loved it (hate the exchange French so much btw). So naturally that left me with the question of what to do against 1. d4.
Is this story similar to yours? 
Long story short. I still play 1. d4, but not the London anymore. With the French defense I switched to Queen’s Gambit and now more recently I’m dabbling in reti and catalan opening pawn structures as white. I think overall it has made me a better chess player than I was.
As for what to do vs. 1.d4?
I eventually stumbled onto the Old Indian complex and have been liking it a lot. Ironically it’s a bit “intuitive” in the ways I explained above (here I thought I was growing as a chess player, ha!). In all fairness though, I think it is really solid, a bit slow, usually doesn’t result in a center that’s blown wide open, good against not only 1.d4 but also flank/pet openings, and fights for the center in a manner that’s more classical as opposed to modern (imo). I also think it has a lot more hidden dynamism than the London ever gave me as white. I’ve liked it so much that I even stopped playing the French to further explore the Philidor version of it (via 1…d6 2…Nf6).
So to answer your question? How about you check out the Old Indian? (with the occasional foray back into the KID 
).
@PawnstormPossie, thanks, but I don't play daily games.
I have tended to play the Leningrad Dutch, simply because there isn't anything a d4 player can do to stop me playing it. I am happy playing against so-called anti-Dutch lines - it's still the Dutch as far as I'm concerned.
I've been studying chess for about 18 months now. Most of my chess is actually played OTB in addition to games here. I have found an opening for white (London) that fits my personality, but have struggled to find a way to get into a game for black.
After a while, I started playing the Pirc to 1. e4 and the KID for 1. d4. But I found that even after reading several books, watching many of the wonderful videos on chess.com and elsewhere, they are not as intuitive to me as the approach I've I have been trying to follow with the London. I've begun to play the French as my response to 1. e4 and while I'm still working the opening, it seems much more intuitive to me as I can connect the moves to a better overall strategy to the endgame.
Yet, I haven't found a suitable opening for meeting 1. d4. For someone who feels comfortable with the style of the London and French, any suggestions that might work for me to meet 1. d4?
Thanks.