Pat:
We do agree on the firm greens combined with firm conditions "through the green" (particularly on certain types and styles of courses).
But in my mind the degrees of the receptiveness (or NOT) of greens to aerial approach shots is where setups and maintenance practices can get really interesting, really challenging and very multi-optional in a variety of ways.
Look at it this way. If you had a course like say Merion with very firm conditions "through the green" (particularly anywhere from 40-50yds in on approaches to green) combined with greens that are very receptive to aerial shots (greens that very much pitch mark instead of lightly denting) you have a situation where a wide variety of players can play any kind of shot they want with a high degree of confidence in the shot's success!
Weaker players could run the ball in if they felt they were incapable or less likely to succeed with an aerial shot. Good players could fly aerial shots at greens and very much particular parts of greens (and pins) with a high degree of confidence!
That kind of "maintenance meld" I would call a setup that would make the course vulnerable to very low scoring!
Is that kind of setup multi-optional? It certainly is! But what would induce a good player to try anything other than his aerial option? Nothing would! It's his bread and butter shot and he would have a high degree of confidence it would work all day long--so why would he ever attempt another option, like a runup option?
On the other hand, if you really firmed up the greens (where they lightly dent instead of pitch marking) you have a situation where the weaker player can run the ball in, particularly since he is less likely to choose an aerial option even with very RECEPTIVE greens.
But for the good player with firm greens that slightly dent (far less receptive greens to his standard aerial option) you've created a quandry in his mind!
Now he knows he can't rely on his standard aerial shot without trying to execute it with far more spin than he ordinarily would! He thinks, can I do that with success, or should I try something else, like a runup shot (or some other shot somewhat in between the two)--and how well will that work and am I comfortable with that?
Would that be multi optional too? It certainly would? Only now you've created a situation, unlike the one above with the receptive greens where a good player will choose the aerial option EVERY TIME, where the good player isn't that sure WHAT TO CHOOSE TO DO or what will succeed for him.
Both setups and maintenance practices could be considered multi optional but with the first a good player would rarely consider the ground game option but with the second he's not as sure which to consider and choose or what the degree of success of either would be!
That would be almost forcing him to use real imagination, creativity, confidence and concentration in the decision making process as much as in the actual execution. The only way I can see to do that with a good player is to dial down the effectiveness of his standard aerial option by really firming up those greens to where they lightly dent and he can't control his aerial shot half so well!
The second type (firm greens combined with firm approaches and firm "through the green") would be the "ideal maintenance meld" and setup to me on many of the old ground game designed courses.
And then throw in with that some bunkers that have real meaning, particularly well placed around the greens, as you've suggested, and other things that confuse recoverability and you have the best golf can be.