COMS PROB POSSIBLE DUE TO A CTLR CHANGE CAUSING CONFUSION BTWN PLT AND CTLR ON RWY TO BE USED FOR LNDG.

Narrative

THE INCIDENT OCCURRED AT THE END OF AN IFR-FILED FLT. ACFT WAS BE58P. ABQ APCH ASKED PREFERRED RWY (RWY 8 OR RWY 3). I RESPONDED 'EITHER -- WHICHEVER IS EASIEST FOR YOU.' WAS THEN GIVEN DSCNT AND VECTORS -- INITIALLY FOR RWY 3. ALSO; INITIALLY; FREQ WAS REASONABLY QUIET (NON-BUSY). THERE MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN A CTLR CHANGE; ALTHOUGH I AM NOT CERTAIN OF THIS. AS THE CTLR BEGAN TO GET BUSIER HANDLING OTHER ACFT; INCLUDING A B737; I WAS GIVEN VECTORS HDG ME ALMOST DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH RWY 8. I THEN ASKED THE CTLR IF I WAS THEN TO LAND ON RWY 8. I THOUGHT I HEARD AFFIRMATIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; AND PROCEEDED TOWARD RWY 8; DSNDING. DURING THIS TIME; THE CTLR INFORMED ME OF B737 TFC; AND MY PAX AND I WERE LOOKING ACTIVELY FOR THAT TFC; BUT DID NOT SEE IT. THE CTLR ULTIMATELY GAVE ME A REQUEST TO CLB AND A NEW VECTOR FOR DOWNWIND PATTERN FOR RWY 3. A LATER DISCUSSION BY PHONE WITH ABQ TRACON; IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL HAD REVIEWED THE TAPES; CONFIRMED MY QUERY OF RWY 8 VERSUS RWY 3 TO THE CTLR; BUT THAT 1) THE CTLR SAID HE HAD NOT HEARD THAT REQUEST; AND; 2) THAT THE CTLR HAD NOT AFFIRMED THAT I WAS TO LAND ON RWY 8. THE TRACON PERSON WAS GENUINELY INTERESTED IN LEARNING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND CAUSES OF THE MISCOM; AS WAS I. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD NOT FILE A PLTDEV RPT. WE BOTH FELT THAT THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE APPEARED TO BE MISCOM OR INCOMPLETE COM. REMEDY FROM MY STAND POINT APPEARS TO BE ACHIEVE ABSOLUTE CERTAINLY ON ANY AMBIGUITIES IN COM.