bimath vs bfmath

[Hans van der Meer <hansm@science.uva.nl>]

Why does

     $\bfmath a \rightarrow b$ % b-f-math

behaves different from

     $\bimath a \rightarrow b$ % b-i-math

In the first I get a bold arrow, not in the second one.
In bfmath the symbol font switches to bold, but in bimath it does not.
The variables do change correctly to bolditalic in both cases..

Is the symbolfont in the mathfamilies not switched in \bimath?

For the font (Lucida) I have normal and bold symbol definitions  
installed:
        sy=MathSymbol mo 1,
   \definefontsynonym [MathSymbol]        [LucidaNewMath-Symbol]
        sybf=MathSymbolBold mo 1,
   \definefontsynonym [MathSymbolBold]    [LucidaNewMath-Symbol-Demi]

I did set \setupformulas[method=bold] in the preamble and verified  
that \boldfacemathmethod has the value 1.
Inspection of font-bfm.tex did not give me the solution.
I must confess being lost here.



As an aside another observation with bold math. After:
         \setupformulas[method=bold]
         \startformula[method=bold]\bfm ....
     the call to \bfm makes \quad's in the math disappear (using  
lucidabright font setup)
     And in the default font (no fontsetting) \bfm even gives an error
         ! \textfont 7 is undefined (character !).
         \stopdisplaymath ->\stopinnermath $$
                                     \ifgridsnapping \egroup  
\afterdisplayspa...

yours sincerely,
dr. H. van der Meer