I totally agree, it was a complete farce. A previous poster said we cannot judge, because we can't taste the food. What is the point of showing the different tests then ? I presume we have to draw our own conclusions, and judge by the reactions of the diners ?
In the first test for 30 diners, I cannot recall a single complaint about the food in the London establishment. In the Bristol restaurant, there were numerous complaints and lots of plates being sent back barely touched.
The London restaurant messed up in the front of house, but they had to cope with giving a choice of dishes for each course..why did the Bristol boys get away with serving up a set menu ?
If they are going to show a programme that is meant to be a competition, it seems absurd to give a result at the end that appears totally different to the preceding evidence that they have presented.