Help and theory about a game with no direct competence

I came up with a communicative activity which involves this principle. I called it "Men In Dresses".

I begin by thinking of a common collocation (two terms typically heard or seen together); let's use "raincoat" for this example (that is, "rain" and "coat"). I don't tell anyone else this.

Next, I'm going to switch one of the terms to create another collocation, except this time, the resulting combination is like a man in a dress. Certainly, men can wear dresses, as women sometimes wear pants, but it's not something you'll see every day. Nevertheless, there *are* occasions when it may be reasonable to use such a phrase (e.g. women impersonators; cross-dressers; actors).

For example, I might mentally alter the terms to "breadcoat" (e.g. the outer material on deep fried chicken), or "rainbag" (e.g. a container for collecting and moving liquid precipitation).

Finally, I will define or describe my new "man in a dress" to the other players (see examples in previous paragraph). Notice that in my definitions, I never used either of the actual terms in the secret collocation.

The other players, on hearing my "man in a dress" will first try to decode this clue to arrive on the collocated terms involved (e.g. rainbag). Then, they must try to guess the original collocation (e.g. raincoat), using their "man in a dress" answer as the prompt or inspiration.

An especially crafty player might also slip a clue toward the original collocation into the "man in a dress" definition.

For example, my original collocation might be "blood donor" and my man in a dress could be "blood coat"; the definition "outerwear gift for a coroner" includes the term "gift", which alludes to the "donor" portion of the original collocation.

You'll need at least three people to play. Players take turns defining their men in dresses, while the others compete to decode the clue. No paper or pens, no dice, no board, no cards, no time limit; you can even play by mobile phone text message.