I am of the opinion that cuebidding beats pattern bidding in the long run. But, some either disagree or simply have their own preference. It seemed to me that a partnership could opt to use either one, perhaps situation-dependent, by employing a trigger.
Consider, for instance, a classic 2/1 GF auction:
If spades are agreed for your partnership at this point, then some will use my methods and cuebid from this point forward, whereas others will prefer to have Opener complete his pattern and then cuebid from there. What if, instead, the first step is a trigger?
For those who lean cuebidding but might want to allow a pattern-bidding over-ride, consider this structure:
2NT = complete pattern
3C = club cue
3D = diamond cue, no club cue available
In other words, 2NT triggers pattern bidding, whereas any other call would be cuebidding immediately. 2NT could either ask (please complete your pattern, Responder) or relay (please bid 3C so that I can show my pattern), perhaps with allowance of a relay-override in the latter situation. You might even have a 2NT asking bid with its own one-step override (after 2NT asking for pattern, Responder bids 3C to override and demand cues whereas other calls show pattern).
If the tendency is instead pro-pattern, 2NT by Opener could override and demand cuebidding (again with a possible override if you want), whereas other calls would be pattern calls.