The tag implication #49658 sandwich_position -> lucky_pierre has been rejected.

Reason: Every Instance of Sandwich_position should imply the tag Lucky_Pierre, as there is a Lucky Pierre in every sandwich

EDIT: The tag implication sandwich_position -> lucky_pierre (forum #355610) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Not really. In fact, I'm not sure if there's ever a lucky pierre in a sandwich_position, to be honest. It would have to be an unusual combo version to make room for a lucky pierre extra to happen in the middle of a sandwich position... But there's not a lucky pierre in a normal sandwich position.

A lucky_pierre is doing two things at the same time: 1, being penetrated by someone and 2, also penetrating someone else. An all-male version of a train position might always have a lucky pierre, at least in theory. But not in a sandwich position.

In a train_position, they're all facing the same direction (except for the end person who can face either direction), so they each penetrate forwards into the next person. So the person(s) in the middle tends to be both penetrated and also penetrating at the same time = a lucky pierre in the middle of a train position. That is pretty common.

But in a sandwich position, both ends penetrate towards the middle, making them the stuffing in the middle of a sandwich. So that middle person isn't penetrating anyone else, they're only being penetrated. So no lucky pierre. Just lucky in other ways.

I agree with you that not all sandwich's as we have them defined have lucky Pierre's, but I think you're misunderstanding Sandwich_position and Train_Position's differences.

In your explanation of Train_position, you said "In a train_position, they're all facing the same direction (except for the end person who can face either direction)". But that's wrong, at least according to the Train_position wiki. Participants at the end can not face either direction. The Train_position wiki goes into depth about how while the directions participants faced didn't matter in the past, it now does. For it to be Train, they all must face the same direction. For it to be sandwich, the ones at the end must face the middle person.
In your explanation of sandwich position, you said "both ends penetrate towards the middle, making them the stuffing in the middle of a sandwich. So that middle person isn't penetrating anyone else, they're only being penetrated." But that's not correct. Or at the very least, it's inconsistent with the wiki. The wiki for sandwich states that "Gender and penetration do not matter. It resembles a sandwich; the outer partners being the bread, both facing the center partner squished between them. If the center participant is visibly being penetrated by one participant, and visibly penetrating the third participant, they are known as a 'lucky_pierre". As we currently have it defined, penetration does not matter, only that the outermost partners are facing inwards.

Now I'm thinking we should have a discussion on whether or not we need to distinguish between the types of sandwiches. One of the big reasons there's so much mistagging between Sandwich_position and Train_position (there's at least thirty pages of items where "train_pos" and "missionary" have been tagged together, which is impossible for a train and they're actually referring to a sandwich, but I'm cleaning it up as best I can currently) is that Sandwich is currently acting like an umbrella term of sorts for multiple acts. The wiki for Sandwich_position even goes through all the different types of acts, covering acts of double penetration, linear penetration chains, and non-linear penetration chains. As long as the partners face the middlemost person, we're calling it a sandwich_position.

I think that we could clear a lot of the confusion and mistagging by making it so that the type of penetration does matter. Penetration is required for Sandwich_position anyways, as it's what turns "Sandwiched" into the subcategory "Sandwich_position".

I think separating the chained penetration acts from the double penetration acts is probably the best idea in order to stop the confusion regarding what Sandwich_Postion is.
Having done some research into position names (no good names for the chained version), I think that we should separate the tag into "Sandwich_Position" for the chained penetration wherein the outermost participants face inwards, and a new tag for what is called "double_stuffed_position". Double_Stuffed_position is an already popular name outside of e621 that refers to threesome acts that feature double_penetration among participants facing inwards towards a central being who is getting "double_stuffed".

Now being a tag for exclusively chained penetration, Sandwich_position would be able to be implicated to Lucky_pierre accurately. Even in the wiki for Sandwich_pos, the only example not to have a lucky_pierre is the first example with the double penetration.

The tag implication sandwich_position -> lucky_pierre (forum #355610) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.