A320 CAPT REPORTS HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY ZOA CONTROLLER DO NOT PRODUCE THE INTENDED HOLDING PATTERN.

Narrative

ZOA BEGAN ISSUING DELAY VECTORS DUE TO TSTMS AT LAS; AND THEN ISSUED A HOLDING PATTERN AT OAL. THE INITIAL HOLDING CLRNC WAS STRAIGHTFORWARD: CLRED TO OAL; HOLD SE ON J92; LEG LENGTH AT PLT'S DISCRETION; EFC IN 'ABOUT 20 MINS.' NOTE THAT THIS EFC TIME WAS ISSUED USING NON-STANDARD NOMENCLATURE. WE SET UP THE HOLDING PATTERN IN THE FMGC AND; APCHING FROM THE W; THE AUTOPLT BEGAN A DIRECT ENTRY. JUST AS THE ACFT WAS MAKING ITS R TURN ONTO THE OUTBOUND LEG; THE CTLR ASKED; ARE YOU MAKING A R OR A L TURN?' I TOLD HIM WE WERE IN A R TURN. MOMENTS LATER; HE TOLD US TO REMAIN WITHIN 10 MI NE OF J92. OUR OUTBOUND LEG WAS WELL BEYOND 10 MI FROM J92; AND I BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE HOLDING PATTERN AS ISSUED WAS TAKING US CLOSE TO A RESTR AREA. THE CTLR THEN TOLD US (AND OTHER ACFT ISSUED THE HOLDING CLRNC) THAT OUR HOLDING PATTERN SHOULD BE 'SW OF J92;' IE; ON THE L SIDE OF THE AIRWAY. I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED US TO MAKE L TURNS. BUT HE AGAIN RESPONDED WITH; 'REMAIN SW OF J92.' THIS WAS THE SECOND EXAMPLE OF NON-STANDARD NOMENCLATURE; AND I BEGAN TO WONDER IF THE CTLR MIGHT BE A TRAINEE. HE THEN MADE A REF TO OUR INBOUND LEG TO OAL AS BEING A 'SEBOUND' BEARING. THIS SEEMED TO REVEAL SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION ON HIS PART; FOR; WHEN HOLDING SE OF OAK; OUR INBOUND LEG WOULD BE A NWBOUND BEARING. BEFORE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION; HE CLRED US OUT OF THE HOLDING PATTERN WITH A L TURN DIRECT TO BTY. THE FLT THEN PROCEEDED TOWARD LAS. ULTIMATELY; WE DIVERTED AFTER LAS REFUSED ARRS DUE TO TSTMS AND SURFACE WINDS EXCEEDING 50 KTS. FLYING THE HOLDING PATTERN AS CLRED RESULTED IN THE CTLR ISSUING A SERIES OF MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS; SUGGESTING THAT THE CTLR MAY HAVE ISSUED THE HOLDING CLRNC INCORRECTLY. THE CTLR USED NON-STANDARD NOMENCLATURE AND APPEARED TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT HOW ACFT UNDER HIS CTL WOULD FLY THE HOLDING PATTERN HE HAD ISSUED. ALTHOUGH THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'HOLD SE' OF OAL ON J92; I SUSPECT THAT HIS INTENTION MAY HAVE BEEN FOR US TO HOLD NW OF OAL. I SUSPECT THIS FOR 2 REASONS: 1) HOLDING NW WOULD HAVE MADE MORE OPERATIONAL SENSE; KEEPING FLTS FARTHER AWAY FROM RESTR AIRSPACE AND PUTTING THEM ON A BEARING TOWARD LAS ON THE INBOUND HOLING LEG; AND 2) HE MADE REF TO OUR INBOUND LEG AS BEING SEBOUND.