While nephrologists wait for the ideal, non invasive, inexpensive, precise, and reproducible tool to evaluate extracellular volume (ECV), they need to exert their clinical acumen in the quest of that holy grail, dry weight (DW).Estimation of DW using a clinical approach based on blood pressure (BP) and ECV is feasible and reliable as shown by successful experiences in various dialysis modes over more than three decades. But a need still exists to resolve difficulties associated with accurate assessment of BP (methods and circumstances of measurement, and the confounding effects of antihypertensive drugs) and ECV (evaluation of weight changes unrelated to ECV, lack of specificity and sensitivity of clinical symptoms, lag time, confusion in terminology). An essential point in clinical assessment of DW is that a normal BP is at the same time the target and the crucial index of DW achievement. For this reason, a trialand‐error “probe” process has to be used at intervals to make sure that the dry weight target point is correctly estimated.The various “non clinical” methods proposed for dry weight assessment increase the complexity and the cost of hemodialysis. They are, in the present state of things, more clinical research than practice tools. They do not replace clinical judgment.