Pat:
Great question--and my response to you would be about the same as many of the other questions you've asked on here about architecture. That would be--nothing formulaic, nothing standardized into some sort of value system!
Why? Because that isn't the way of nature. And golf architecture at it's best should do its best to emulate nature. Nature, it's lines, it's formations, its shapes are so incredibly random--that's part of the inherent beauty of it. That's part of the reason Behr lobbied so hard for golf and it's architecture to be looked at more as a "sport" instead of a "game".
The distinction he made there was a "sport" is something man plays both in, with and across Nature--in a real way Nature is the sport of golf's medium--like hunting, fishing etc. A "game", on the other hand, is something largely, if not completely, designed and defined and manufactured by man, complete with standardized boundaries and value systems.
In golf architecture Behr felt the features of design (man made) would be best if they largely emulated the look and randomness of Nature. He believed this so Nature would not completely lose its part in the equation of playing the "sport" across Nature unadorned (or appearing so). He believed it so Nature would not lose its part in the balance of Nature as golf's medium. Golf's architecture was never supposed to be some completely defined and precise chessboard with its precise boundaries and values. That, to Behr was the "game playing mind" of the organizational Man!
Behr, however, did except, but only to a degree, what he called a few of golf's (and architecture's) necessary requirements. There were only four---tees, greens, fairways and bunkers! Bunkers, however, Behr said were the "odd vestige" of the game and it's architecture, that wasn't exactly necessary but had hung on in design from its natural beginnings in the linkslands (the original natural sand dune bunkers of the linksland). But as something that had apparently become necessary to architecture over time as golf migrated out of the original natural linkslands bunkers (sand) could be anything but natural to certain sites in this world.
But even with those four exceptions he said make them, or at least the shapes and lines and look of them, as random as possible to preserve that random aspect of Nature itself in golf.
So, that's why I keep saying do nothing formulaic or standardized in architecture. That only conforms to Man's "game playing mind" and not to the randomness of Nature as golf should never loose that as its medium to play on. That's most of what makes courses different and varied from one another and adds to the fascination of golf. The other direction just gets closer to the tennis court mentality.
So nothing should be standardized and formulized, including how bunkers function. I'd recommend the borders and surrounds of some bunkers should cast the ball away from them if a golfer skirts extremely close to them while others should use surrounding topography to collect the ball into them from afar.
What any golfer needs to do then and to be aware of is the random factors of the features of the course he's playing and how they function uniquely. The experience factor then kicks in here and the sport becomes better and more interesting. Unpredictability rises and Man's game playing perception of the necessity of fairness declines and minimizes.
By the way, one of the best examples of bunkering (primarily fairway bunkering) that collects the ball from really afar into bunkers on some holes is Oakmont. The fairway bunkering of Oakmont are a large, large part of the primary tee to green strategies of that golf course.
I fully expect you to come back and disagree with much of what I've said here, Pat, because I believe you possess a truly "game playing" mentality, or at least you appear to argue for it an awful lot when it comes to golf and it's architecture.
That's OK, I suppose--lots of people do possess the "game playing" mentality when it comes to golf and things like the necessity of fairness that needs such things as "formulaics", "standardization" and completely defined values--all practically the opposite of randomness and the way of Nature!
But thankfully a lot of others don't seem to support that "game playing" mentality and are supporting more of a return to randomness and the way of Nature--and their numbers seem to be growing everyday. Many of the great old architects of the "Golden Age" seemed to support that Natural random philosophy and principle in architecture, but certainly not all of them did or at least not to the same degree. The same with today's architects.