[r-t] Stedman Doubles derivative

[grahamfeeney at bulldoghome.com]

Hello All

I've been playing with Abel and whilst trying to get the place notation
for Reverse Stedman in, I accidentally wound up with a slightly different
principle:

1z &3.5.1.3.5.3

This is not the same as Reverse Stedman Doubles as the 'lead end' is 1. 
I've been able to give it a single (123) and can get a true 120 using
Stedman 120 (1/5) as given in Abel.

I cannot find a match for this in the archives and our local expert
thought that it was worth putting out to ask opinions about whether the
principle is unrung.

Cheers

Graham Feeney, Cardiff