No, a player shouldn't as a matter of course be able to see the strategy of a tee shot. However, except for exceptional circumstances, it would be tiresome if the player is clueless on more than a few tee shots. That said, often times golfers are given some idea of the strategy, but not the complete picture. These are often the most perplexing holes. A key to a clueless tee shot is added width. It might be a terrible place to be, but the ball can be found quickly. Not much worse than a blind tee shot where its easy to lose a ball mainly because you can't see it land.
Ciao
Sean,
I agree with you here. A few times per round is an interesting design feature, but an endless string of hard to read holes diminishes the enjoyment quite a bit.
Again, referring to the old pro mentality (epitomized by the ever eloquent Jim Colbert) "The hole ought to lay out in front of me like a roadmap!" It would be interesting to hear if today's pros are just as adamant, but I bet it's close. If you think of yourself as a strategic player, you want to know all the info you can before deciding on a shot, no? Sort of like a general before an invasion, you don't want to go in blind.
I was influenced by one Pete Dye hole, where he was forced into a blind tee shot, but marked the basic line with a nice saddle in the fw at the crest of the hill to indicate line. And, as mentioned, the fw was really wide, but as a golfer, you did have to know where you wanted to play it, including which general side had an advantage.
"Clueless" is always uncomfortable, and sometimes unsafe, as in cresting a hill and your partner saying, "This is my Titleist, I thnk that is your Maxfli under the dead guy over there!"
I agree that course reading may be more suitable for private clubs with repeat play, and less suitable for public and resort courses where you have a high number of infrequent or first time players, not to mention, probably a bit less savvy on thinking your way around the course, so it varies. For most courses, it is always "safer" in design to provide full visibility.
Now, that is not to say that you can't try to fool golfers a bit, as in having three holes in a row with target bunkers off the tee, with the fourth looking the same, but in reality, you want to aim anywhere but there for the best line, etc. But, if they look closely, they should be able to tell the fw contours on that line are unfavorable, or closer to natives, etc.
And, as TD mentions, golfers never seem to mind a pleasant surprise, as in skulling one over the green only to find a blind bunker has saved them from going down a cliff. Unpleasant surprises are less well received.
It would be interesting, again, to hear what Tom D thinks that Brooks Keopka would say about purposely hiding the strategy of a hole? It might change over time, and over a generation of golfers. On the am side, I bet there aren't a lot of folks outside the golf architecture nerd community who feel hiding the hole's light under a bushel is a great thing.