It works very poorly in practice, in my experience.

You interrupt people 2-4 hours into their work, which is highly disruptive for those who get the most done in the morning.

Often discussions run on past many peoples' lunch time, which can make people cranky and occasionally leads to tense exchanges which might have been more amicable if people weren't hangry.

You wind up with people melding the work they did during the previous day and the current day. It gets difficult to keep track of what you did between two days' midpoints compared to what you did during a day.

And things get worse as more items are inevitably added to the standup meetings (now we need to check on tests, now we need to add a review of open tickets, now we need to involve people from other teams, etc).

In my experience, pre-lunch scrums result in heavy disruption and a bunch of people who feel like they could be doing other things to much greater effect.

If you're not keeping the daily scrum shorter than 15 minutes then that's in and of itself a problem that will make people annoyed and disrupted.

The problem probably isn't the time the meeting takes, it's the subsequent discussions about various things brought up during the meeting.

In my team, we have it early in the morning, so we can overlap with India. Folks in US have rest of their day for work, whereas folks in India do the standup at the end of the day just before going home.

Must be terrible for those in your team who aren't predisposed to waking early