so, this maybe won't serve you guys right now, but imo immediately baptized without any details, the jailer and his whole household who is never named, and then Paul is recorded as "baptizing" some other ppl later whose names occur only the one time, Crispus and Gaius, obv refs to Nero's father, and we are left to assume right after in 1Cor1 that the jailer was "Stephanus," (The meaning of Stephanas is "crown, garland") but when you put all of the elements together another story emerges, the one about the real baptisms I guess, wherein no people were wetted at all, but rather "immediately" immersed, by circumstance and choice I guess.
Paul is using the term "baptism" on another level than we are reading it, and this is only revealed when the irl nature of baptisms is understood and you then go back and read the passages looking for confirmation, and find it in the way sentences are carefully constructed a certain way, and names are used in a certain place where they are apropos of nothing, rather than in the pertinent passage, and other dialectic devices.
Iow the jailer was not named bc he is a type, and if they put "Stephanas" in there they would get killed by the Romans bc everyone would understand what it meant