The nil is risky for the reasons described above. My partner bid first, not knowing whether I had a good hand. Also, while they only had two spades, one of them was high (the Jack). As you can see, I had 3 spades, but small ones. And I had a lot of small clubs. If this nil is to work, we'd need for the opponents to take most of the tricks with high cards! Fortunately, my left-hand opponent had bid 6. That indicates they have a lot of high cards and good (high) spades, so we would have to hope that player would unwillingly help in covering my partner's bid.
You can use the replayer link above to see how this hand worked out. I've also recorded the replayer and uploaded it to YouTube, if you'd prefer to watch it there:
You can learn a lot by watching this replayer. My left-hand opponent has some pretty good cards. My low bid shows that I have a weak hand. My opponents should read this to mean that I will probably not be able to take a trick if they lead with low cards. I think my right-hand opponent did not do a great job at attacking the nil. For example, they led with the Ace of clubs in the third trick, when it probably would have been better to lead with any of their multiple lower ranked cards.Despite this somewhat poor attack on the nil, we still managed to get set. In this case, I don't think the nil was justifiable. It was risky, and there was no need for it: the scores were about even, mid-300s for each team, so the game was not near the end, yet. It was still fun. Some people will argue that there's never any reason to bid a nil like this. However, it definitely makes for an interesting game when your partner takes on some risks! And sometimes, it works.