A game-based exercise that teaches the language of negotiation – not just the logic of it.
Most negotiation courses cover the frameworks – BATNA, ZOPA, anchoring, reservation price. And those things matter. But here’s what they often miss: negotiation happens between humans, and humans run out of words under pressure.
When someone throws an objection at us in the middle of a deal, we tend to do one of three things. We defend ourselves. We explain ourselves. Or we discount. And all three responses tend to harden positions rather than open them up.
Objection Tennis gives students a fourth option: shift the meaning of the objection, then explore what’s underneath it.
It’s built on a framework called Sleight of Mouth – a set of conversational reframing patterns originally developed by Robert Dilts and later adapted for business communication. The exercise gamifies the process of handling objections that come up in real entrepreneurial deal-making: equity splits, pricing, exclusivity, control, long-term commitments – the stuff that actually derails deals.
The Core Idea
Here’s the thing about objections: they’re almost never facts. They’re belief statements.
When someone says “that price is too high” or “giving up equity means losing control” – they’re not reporting reality. They’re reporting their interpretation of it. And interpretations can be explored, questioned, and reframed without anyone losing face.
Every objection tends to follow one of two structures:
Cause–Effect If X, then Y “If we give exclusivity, then we’ll lose flexibility.”
Equivalence X means Y “Giving up equity means losing control.”
Once students can spot the structure, they can start working with it. Our job as negotiators isn’t to win the argument; it’s to surface the assumptions behind the objection, then open space to explore from there
How to Play: Quick-Start Guide for Instructors
The setup is simple.
Students work in pairs.
One plays the Objector (using the Constraint Cards), the other plays the Reframer (using the Pattern Cards).
The Objector serves up a clear, one-sentence objection. The Reframer returns it using one of the Sleight of Mouth patterns. Then roles swap.
We’re not scoring wins. We’re scoring reps.
Round 1: Warm-Up Volleys (~10 mins) Free choice of pattern. Keep the energy up and the stakes low. The goal is fluency, not perfection. If it gets messy, reset and serve again.
Round 2: Pattern Rotation (~15 mins) Assign specific patterns for each exchange. This forces students out of their comfort zone and helps them discover how different patterns shift conversations in distinct ways.
Round 3: Stacking (~15 mins) Students combine two or more patterns in sequence. This is where it gets interesting – stacking deepens the conversation and starts moving it from surface positions to underlying interests.
Debrief (~15 mins) Capture standout reframes on the board. Ask the group what landed, what didn’t, and why. (See the debrief questions below.)
Timing options:
- Short form (20–30 mins): Intro + Round 1 + mini-debrief
- Standard class (60–90 mins): All three rounds + full debrief
- Extended session: Add a mini full-negotiation simulation at the end
When to run it: Works best mid-semester, once students have basic exposure to negotiation frameworks like BATNA, ZOPA, or Fisher & Ury’s Getting to Yes. It fills the gap those frameworks leave – the language-level skills that matter when things get real.
Debrief Discussion Questions
On the language and patterns:
- Which reframes most effectively shifted the meaning of an objection?
- Did some patterns feel more natural than others … and why?
- How did stacking patterns change the depth of the conversation compared to a single reframe?
On negotiation theory:
- How did reframing help move the conversation from positions to interests – as Fisher & Ury describe in Getting to Yes?
- How do these reframing moves complement (or contrast with) classic frameworks like BATNA and ZOPA?
On the entrepreneurial context:
- Which objections were hardest to reframe, and why?
- How might these patterns apply differently in a founder–investor negotiation versus a sales conversation?
- How can reframing build trust with stakeholders rather than come across as manipulation?
Personal reflection:
- What did you notice about your own default response when faced with an objection?
- Which single pattern would you feel most confident using outside the classroom … and where?
- Where else might these skills be useful beyond deal-making? (Think: leadership, conflict resolution, client management.)
Teaching Tips
Keep rounds short and energetic. Speed lowers self-consciousness and builds fluency faster than careful, considered practice.
Encourage the awkward patterns. The ones that feel unnatural often spark the biggest insights. Push students to try them anyway.
Tone matters as much as the words. Reframing works best when it’s delivered with genuine curiosity – not cleverness. If it sounds like a debate trick, it won’t land.
Capture the good stuff publicly. Use a whiteboard or shared screen to collect standout reframes during the debrief. It creates collective learning moments and gives students language they can actually take with them.
The big picture to leave students with: Objections aren’t walls. They’re belief statements – and belief statements can be explored. Language is leverage. And these patterns give students a replicable, ethical way to use it.
Downloads
🖥️ USASBE2026_SoM_Slides The full slide deck from the USASBE 2026 conference session.
🃏 Constraint Cards – PDF Print and cut. 40 objection cards covering equity, pricing, exclusivity, control, terms, and more.
🃏 Pattern Cards – PDF The Sleight of Mouth reframing pattern cards for the Reframer role.