+1 with Colin and Shaun: Too many options at once will fail, unless it was specifically requested. The golden rule of psychology is that most people can only hold 5 items, ±2, in short-term memory at once, and fewer choices leads to less "choice paralysis." In other fields of design, one almost never shows more than three options at once.
It's important to first describe how the approach and ideas behind each are different. Don't describe the sounds themselves - that's what the director's ears are for. Instead speak to the approach behind each one before they're played. This allows you to help the client (your director) separate whether or not, if you need to make revisions, your thinking is flawed or whether your execution falls short. Not knowing which needs fresh thinking will lead you back to the drawing board unnecessarily and lead to unneeded rounds of revisions. If the concept or thinking needs revision, then it's the perfect time to have that chat with the director and get on the same page. If it's the execution, then it's a more tactical sound design problem and the director at least gets the sense you're on the right path, but it's just not the right specific sound.
Follow this up so that every round of critique starts with a recap of what you and the client discussed the last time. This lets you be a cool cat if the client starts giving you conflicting feedback: You have a record. This is a classic tool to have a direct and emotionless discussion about change orders or increased fees as a result of trying to design against a moving target...as well as a tool for the client to be held accountable AND try to give you ever-narrowing feedback to get everyone to the right sound.
This is just one of many techniques that should always help to ensure that even if you must do revisions, that the shades of difference and amount of disconnect in each design round get ever smaller and smaller, until a single result is arrived at.