The __bool__ method is a little faster than __len__.
Timings attached.

Is it worth the definition of tp_as_number and maintaining another method for a micro-optimization? Presumably every collection in Python would benefit slightly from this (say, defaultdict in the same file, list, tuple, etc.), but none of them bother. Why would deque be worth the optimization and not the more commonly used built-ins?

On further checking, this probably gives slightly greater benefit to deque than it would for list, tuple, dict, etc., only because PyObject_IsTrue checks for mapping before sequence; deque is a pure sequence, no mapping, so it has to fail an extra test before it reaches the sequence length interface check and uses it, where any sequence that supports extended slicing must support parts of the mapping interface, and usually copies the sequence function pointer to the mapping length slot as well.

Still hard to justify, though. Testing the truthiness of a deque is not likely to be the critical code path for many applications (if you want to take advantage of deque's atomic behaviors, you're using EAFP patterns anyway, not testing truthiness), and the gain in boolean testing means other (likely low probability tests) will run slower (for example, testing a deque with PyNumber_Check would go slower, because it would pass an extra test before failing each time).

Thanks for taking a look.   IMO, the cost of this one is near zero and there is a modest benefit.  It is simple enough that I don't feel any angst about applying it.  I'm doing several little touch-ups to the module, individually nothing, but collectively making it better overall.

New changeset bb27dff7f83f by Raymond Hettinger in branch 'default':
Issue 23744:  Minor speed-up for deque.__bool__().
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/bb27dff7f83f