Much attention has been devoted to the “first offer” in negotiation research. Rightly so, as strong empirical evidence shows that the first offer has a significant impact on the negotiated outcome and, therefore, is a highly relevant topic for negotiation scholars and practitioners. Scholars typically recommend making the first offer. However, in the field, we have observed an alternative opening tactic—asking for the best price that the counterpart is willing to accept. This question represents a real alternative to making the first offer by initiating the discussion of specific settlement proposals, provided the counterpart answers the query. Does it, however, lead the other side to make a better offer? How does the question impact the economic and relational outcomes of the negotiation? Is it advisable to use this tactic in negotiations? We investigated these questions based on a controlled laboratory experiment, in which 227 dyads of cellphone buyers and sellers negotiated synchronously via a text chat. We found that the best‐price question has an impact on not only the first offer but also the negotiation outcome. When the buyers in our experiment asked the question, the results were not significantly different than those from negotiations in which they made the first offer. This effect was driven by the first offer in response to the question. Additionally, we found that the best‐price question did not negatively impact the relational outcome. Moreover, the effect was reduced when list price information was available. These findings suggest rethinking the traditional view of the offer‐counteroffer sequence and provide an alternative opening tactic to making the first offer in the context of high information asymmetry.

First offers play a significant role in negotiations as they anchor negotiators’ perceptions and influence negotiation outcomes in favor of the first-offer proposer. However, negotiation is a joint decision-making process in which a first offer is typically succeeded by a counteroffer. The impact of a counteroffer has not yet been systematically researched. We propose that a counteroffer influences negotiation outcomes like a first offer. In addition, we conceptualize the “anchor zone” as the distance between the first offer and the counteroffer. We theorize that the anchor zone influences negotiation outcomes because it captures additional information compared to a single offer. To test our hypotheses, we conducted two studies: Study 1 was a vignette study (n = 190) in which participants reacted to a counteroffer that they received based on their first offer as part of a simulated negotiation. Study 2 was an online experiment (n = 212) in which participants negotiated by exchanging offers with no further communication. Our analysis suggests that the counteroffer is a significant predictor of economic outcomes. Thus, it works like a first offer, but with a lower impact. In addition, the anchor zone predicted how far the final agreement was from the first offer. Furthermore, we found that the third offer, the average concessions, and the number of offers mediated the effects of the counteroffer and anchor zone on economic outcomes. Finally, we discovered that a more aggressive counteroffer reduced the subjective value of both negotiators.