If I said I had $100 when asked, but I actually had $200, would I be lying by omission?

If you had $200 cash on you right now, and I asked you if you had $100 on you, would the correct answer be yes (always/no matter what other conditions there are), no (always/no matter what other conditions there are), or it depends on the situation? My answer would be "yes" (always), because if someone asked me if I had $100 because he/she wanted to borrow it (and I had more than $100), then my reply would be "yes." I asked this question before (before deleting it because it was off-topic) on another stack exchange (I would think this topic belongs to philosophy SE at least on interpretation of context alone), and most of the answers were "it depends on the situation." But, I cannot imagine how it could depend on the situation. If "it depends" if I have $100, that doesn't even make sense to me? Either I have $100 or I don't. Is the response "it depends" wrong or is it a situation of semantics? If someone wanted to know if I had exactly $100, then he/she could ask me if I had exactly $100. Edit: The responses seem to be a bit divided with most people answering "it depends." I just thought that "have" can be construed as "in possession of" so usually (depending on context, but in this case it's a yes) it would mean "at least" while other words like "brought" and "give" don't have the same implications (and mean "exactly"). Another example: Do you have a pet dog? (Has a pet dog at home but is not with him/her) I would say the honest response is yes here because of the context and "have" can't be construed as "in possession of" here, but in the above example with money, I would say it can (no matter what other conditions there are). Do you have a pet dog? (Has 2 pet dogs at home but they are not with him/her) I would say the honest response is yes. Do you have one pet dog? (Has 2 pet dogs at home but they are not with him/her) I would say the honest response is no (because "have" doesn't mean in possession of here).