Quiptics … we’ll get the hang of them one of these days.

Obviously if something is just then so must it be even-handed. (Here, ‘so’ means ‘thus’ or ‘therefore’)

You could paraphrase the clue more boringly to the non-cryptic:
Just is equivalent (4-6)
or simply
Just (4-6)

…but then you’re not sending the solver’s though process away from just as in justice as effectively.

It’s just as satisfying as some of the more humorous cryptic definitions we see, so perhaps calling it a misleading definition (because just-so is a phrase with a different meaning) would differentiate it from the usual contrived-thinking c.d. clues.

I promise you, if you are a beginner, that you will be far better off arming yourself with a book of Grauniad – although probably better still Times or Independent – cryptic puzzles from WH Smith, a pencil, a rubber (I mean eraser of course, you wags), possibly some beer, possibly a like-minded friend or dog, and going off to solve as many clues as you can before looking up all the answers and working backwards to see the cryptic devices used.

I think you made the same, very pertinent, point on the last blog I did. The Guardian website does advertise this as ‘part quick, part cryptic’, but it clearly isn’t that. In all the Quiptics that have been blogged so far, there has been nothing other than cryptic clues. Nothing wrong with that, and the puzzle is obviously aimed at newer solvers, but maybe it needs rebranding.

That said, I think it’s a good concept – it’s been going since November 1999 (number one was also set by Don Putnam) and I wish I’d discovered it earlier, when I was starting to learn how this cryptic stuff all worked.

Dodgy bits as already mentioned.

For once it didn’t take longer than the cryptic, mainly due to the latter being Brendan. Had it been Rufus it would have been a close call.

So, at last a proper Quiptic? Nope, much as we here may dislike them, the advert says “and plain clues” which are again notably lacking. Think I’ll add a note to the comments on the crossword’s page. (RacingDog, if you haven’t already figured it!)

I generally rather enjoy Mr. Putnam’s puzzles, but I would appreciate an explanation of 19ac., if anyone has one.

Well, at least this Quiptic fulfils its brief.

We’ve had the S for Sunday discussion several times – if it’s good enough for the 15² calendar …

The two definitions in 15dn are rather too close for me and I agree with you re AMBIVALENT and EVEN-HANDED.

Chambers gives JIMCRACKS as a variant spelling for 6dn, though this is not in Collins or COED, so the homophone could have been avoided.

Both Chambers and Collins have LOW-SPIRITEDNESS, but only hyphenated.

I agree with your quibble about 21dn. ‘Name of chocolate manufacturer’ would be more accurate.