MC -
at the risk of sounding like a copy cat, not only do I agree with Tom D but for me (an average golfer) those kind of bunkers are the biggest pet peeves in golf. And it's not only because they might make the hole harder (I hit it fairly straight these days, and so don't long for more room on the right); it's more because of the *principle* of the thing.
Either good architecture/design means something, or it doesn't. An architect either commits to (and believes in) the time tested strategies and choices that make for a challenging but thought-provoking game, or he doesn't.
On this hole, the architect seems to have been either unsure of himself and/or very cynical, i.e. believing that most golfers would just accept this as another 'hard' hole and not think too much about it (as an 'architectural' failure).
But, the simple 'fact' (and solid design idea) is this: if a golfer chooses to flirt with/risk the waste areas on the left, he'll be rewarded with a clear look/angle into a green that runs in the same direction; but if on the other hand he decides to play safe and go off to the right, he'll not only have to come over that big green-side bunker but he will be flying it to the narrowest part of the green (one at right angles from that line of play).
*That's* the equation; that's the promise even, or at least the traditional and time-tested *bargain*. The safe choice is already costing the less brave and/or less skilled golfer a tougher second shot (and likely, because he is less skilled, at least one extra stroke). Why in goodness name would the architect want to cost him *two* strokes by having him hit out of those bunkers?
On what proven design principle is *that* calculation based? And plus, after playing the golf hole even once, why would *any* golfer ever choose the so-called safe route again?
In short, those fairway bunkers on the right make for a worse hole, in every sense.
I think any architect would know that; I think whoever did this must not have actually cared; maybe he thought/thinks that golfers don't know any better, and would instead equate an ass-kickingly poor design with a great golf hole.
Peter