Posted 2006-December-11, 13:48
I don't know if there's a standard treatment (other than the obvious "minors"), but I think it makes more sense for it to show a more general two-suiter. Over 1-level openings, there are a variety of ways to show various different two-suiters (Michaels and Unusual 2NT over suits, DONT, Cappaletti, Astro, Hello, etc. over 1NT, Truscott, Mathe, CRASH, etc. over strong 1♣), but few partnerships have such detailed systems over 2♣. If you only use 2NT when you have minors, it won't come up very much (1 out of 6 two-suiters) and you're still left with no other way to show the rest of them. So perhaps it should be any two-suiter.
One thing, though. If you're going to bid a two-suiter over 2♣, I think it should probably be at least 6-5, not just 5-5 (and certainly not 5-4, as you might be with some of the conventions mentioned above). You'd like to have a decent chance of finding an 8-card fit to come in over a powerhouse opener. Advancer responds by bidding his cheapest 3+-card suit, and overcaller passes or corrects. The screw case is when overcaller is 1=5=1=6 while advancer is 4=1=6=2 -- they end up in a 5-1 fit rather than their 6-2 or 6-1 fit.